Switching On The Green Light

Environmental Assessment Scoping Statement

Southampton Biomass Power Ltd

Proposed 100MW Biomass Fuelled Electricity Generating Plant, Port

September 2010 Version 4.0

Prepared By:

Helius Energy Plc 242 Marylebone Road London NW1 6JL Tel: 020 7723 6272

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction 2.0 Consultation 3.0 The Proposed Development Site 4.0 The Development Proposals 5.0 Planning Policy Context 6.0 Baseline Conditions 7.0 Identifying Environmental Issues 8.0 Scoping the Environmental Statement 9.0 Non Significant Issues 10.0 Proposed Structure of the Environmental Statement

SCHEDULE OF APPENDICES Appendix A EIA Scope of Significant Issues Appendix B Maps of International and National Nature Conservation Designations within 5 km Appendix C Highways Consultation

PLAN SPTN-9001-2.0 Site Boundary SPTN-9002-2.0 Aerial View of Primary Development Area SPTN-9003-1.0 Site Location Plan SPTN-1002-1.0 Site Elevation SPTN-1003-1.0 Site Elevation SPTN-1004-2.0 Associated Development SPTN-1005-2.0 Primary Development Layout

FIGURES Figure 4.16 Process Flow

Southampton Scoping Statement v4.0 Page 2 September 2010

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Helius Energy plc (“Helius Energy”) is seeking to obtain development consent under Section 31 of the Planning Act 2008 in respect of a biomass fuelled electricity generating plant capable of generating approximately 100 Megawatts (Declared Net Capacity) of electricity and associated biomass processing and fuel store, boiler house, turbine building, cooling assembly, ancillary buildings, structures, plant and equipment together with other engineering and building works located within the (Grid Reference SU 396 124). The general location of the site is shown on plan number SPTN-9003-1.0. The proposed site area is shown on plan number SPTN-9001-2.0 and SPTN-9002-2.0.

Detailed Description of Development for which Consent will be Sought

1.2 Consent will be sought for a biomass fuelled electricity generating plant as the primary development. This will be capable of generated approximately 100 Megawatts (declared net capacity) of electricity and comprise the following principal buildings, structures, plant and engineering works:

i Main Biomass Store Building; ii Auxiliary Biomass Fuel Stores; iii Fuel Delivery Building (Road Deliveries); iv Boiler House (comprising one circulating fluidised bed boiler); v Steam Turbine Building (accommodating one steam turbine) vi Transformer Building; vii Motor Control Centre Building; viii Electrical Switch Gear Compound; ix Water Treatment Plant; x Grey/fresh water Storage Tanks; xi Stack Assembly; xii Flue Gas Cleaners; xiii Cooling Assembly (Hybrid Towers or Air Cooled Condenser); xiv Office Accommodation; xv Storage/Workshop/Control Building; xvi Pipes for Hot Water/ Steam Pass Outs and Returns; xvii Weighbridges and Security Gatehouse; xviii Internal Site Access Roads, Hardstandings, Parking Facilities and Pedestrian Walkways Including Access to the Internal Dock Road Network; and xix Bunding, Earthworks, Landscaping, Site Lighting and Boundary Treatments.

1.3 Consent will also be sought for associated development comprising:

Southampton Scoping Statement v4.0 Page 3 September 2010

i Underground connections for cooling water supply and discharge, potable and grey water supply, discharge of process water, discharge of foul water, surface water management systems and surface water discharge; ii Grey water extraction structure and Pump house; and iii Underground electrical connection to the existing electricity grid infrastructure.

1.4 Consent will also be sought for the following ancillary works:

i Demolishing existing substation and removal of existing hardstandings.

1.5 The scheme will also incorporate a conveyor from the site to the quayside. Planning permission is already granted for this by virtue of Class B Part 17 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995.

1.6 Deemed Listed Building Consent will also be sought, if necessary, for any works that may be undertaken to the George V Dock, pursuant to the grey water extraction structure and Pump house.

Need for Environment Impact Assessment

1.7 It is considered that the proposed development falls within Schedule 2, Category 3(1) of The Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009. It is of a scale and nature that could give rise to significant effects and, therefore, the applicant has undertaken to submit an Environmental Statement (ES) with the application for a Development Consent Order.

1.8 As part of the project development and assessment process, the project team has carried out a scoping study to identify the key environmental issues and the need for specific investigations and other technical studies. The scope for the proposed environmental impact assessment (EIA), as presented in this document, has been determined by the following:

i Desktop and baseline field studies; ii Consideration of the relevant development plans for the area including the saved policies from the Southampton Revised Local Plan (2006) and the Southampton Core Strategy (2010); and iii Identification of potential sources of environmental effects and an evaluation of likely duration in magnitude and significance.

1.9 The ES will be a comprehensive account of all significant environmental and associated issues, as required in the EIA Regulations.

Southampton Scoping Statement v4.0 Page 4 September 2010

EIA and Scoping

1.10 Government Circular 02/99 on environmental impact assessment defines EIA as: “a means of drawing together, in a systematic way, an assessment of a project's likely significant environmental effects. This helps to ensure that the importance of the predicted effects, and the scope for reducing them, are properly understood by the public and the relevant competent authority before it makes its decision.” (Circ. 02/99, Paragraph 9).

1.11 The importance of scoping in the EIA process is highlighted in the Good Practice to the Preparation of Environmental Statements, produced by the Department of the Environment (1995). This states that: “Defining its scope is one of the most critical parts of an EIA in that it sets the context for what follows. If the scope is defined too narrowly, some critical areas of uncertainty or adverse impact may emerge late in the day. Decisions on the shape of the project may then be too far advanced to allow for any real change. On the other hand, if the scope of work is too loosely defined, then much time, effort and costs may be spent on pursuing unnecessary detail.” (Good Practice Guide, Paragraph 2.2).

1.12 Guidance on the content of a Scoping Report is provided in Circular 2/99, which states that it: “Should include a plan indicating the proposed location of the development, a brief description of the nature and purpose of the proposal and its possible environmental effects, giving a broad indication of the likely scale.” (Circular 2/99, Paragraph 55).

1.13 It further states that: “A developer may also wish to submit a draft outline of the ES, giving an indication of what he considers to be the main issues, to provide a focus for the local planning authorities considerations”. (Circular 2/99, Paragraph 90).

1.14 Regulation 8(1) of The Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 provides the applicant with the opportunity to seek a formal Scoping Opinion from the Commission. This Statement has been prepared for agreement with relevant statutory and other consultees on the scope of the environmental impact assessment.

Other Supporting Documents

1.15 In addition to the ES, and in accordance with Regulation 5 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009, the planning application will be accompanied by:

Southampton Scoping Statement v4.0 Page 5 September 2010

i A draft Development Consent Order, pursuant to Section 27 (3)(d) of ‘The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 and accompanied by an Explanatory Memorandum; ii A Book of Reference; iii A Flood Risk Assessment; iv A statement regarding Section 79(10) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990; v A Habitats Regulations Assessment Report; vi A Transport Assessment; vii A Travel Plan; viii A Statement of Community Consultation; ix A Community Consultation Strategy document; and x A Consultation Report.

1.16 The ES, or it’s appendices, will include the following plans, in accordance with Regulation 5 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009:

i A land plan identifying the proposed location of the site; ii A land plan identifying the boundary of the site; iii A land plan identifying any statutory or non-statutory sites or features of nature conservation importance, habitats of protected species and water bodies within the South East River Basin Management Plan; iv A land plan identifying any statutory or non statutory sites or features of the historic environment; and v Indicative elevations of the proposed scheme.

1.17 The ES will refer to relevant parts of the reports listed in paragraph 1.10 and plans listed in paragraph 1.11 as appropriate.

Programme

1.18 The applicant envisages that the application will be submitted to the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) in March 2011.

Southampton Scoping Statement v4.0 Page 6 September 2010

2.0 CONSULTATION

2.1 The process of undertaking consultation assists in identifying the likely environmental and other effects of the proposed development, and enables the refinement of the project to incorporate appropriate mitigation measures to minimise adverse effects and maximise the positive effects of the scheme.

Consultation with Section 42 Statutory Consultees

2.2 Helius Energy requested and attended an initial meeting with the IPC to introduce the project and discuss the pre-application procedures. In addition, Helius Energy has invited the IPC to visit the site, along with the key statutory consultees, as per the guidance contained in ‘Advice Note Three: Scoping opinion consultation’, published by the IPC in March 2010.

2.3 The following is a list of organisations who will be approached as part of the consultation process, pursuant to Section 42 of the Planning Act 2008:

i *The IPC; ii South East England Regional Assembly; iii The Health and Safety Executive; iv The South Central Strategic Health Authority ; v *Natural England; vi English Heritage; vii Fire and Rescue Services; viii Hampshire Constabulary; ix *The Environment Agency; x The Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment; xi South East England Development Agency (SEEDA); xii The Equality and Human Rights Commission; xiii Sustainable Development Commission; xiv Joint Nature Conservation Committee xv *The Highways Agency; xvi *Southampton City Council; xvii Ofgem; xviii The Health Protection Agency; xix Hampshire LRF Secretariat; xx *Associated British Ports; xxi SSE Power Distribution; xxii Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd; xxiii Southern Water; Southampton Scoping Statement v4.0 Page 7 September 2010

xxiv District Council; xxv Fareham Borough Council; xxvi Borough Council; xxvii ; xxviii Parish Council; xxix Partnership for Urban ; xxx Ford Motor Company Ltd (current occupiers of part of the site); xxxi Marine Management Organisation; and xxxii Government Office for the South East. * Key statutory consultees

2.4 Helius Energy is proposing to undertake a two phase approach to consultation with both Statutory and community consultees, which will run in parallel. Table 2.4 sets out a summary of the approach:

Table 2.4 Consultation approach Section 42 Statutory consultation Local Community consultation Informal consultation with relevant bodies to Informal consultation with the local planning inform them of scope of the environmental authority, community groups and locally Phase assessments. elected representatives to inform them of the One Informal consultation will continue throughout proposed scheme and understand local the environmental assessments. issues. Formal consultation, including public Formal consultation on the outcome of the exhibitions, with the local community on the Phase environmental assessments presented within outcome of the environmental assessments Two a Technical Consultation Document. presented within a Non Technical Consultation Document.

2.5 Helius Energy submitted a draft Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC), along with a draft Community Consultation Strategy document, to the Local Planning Authority on 15th September 2010 for their formal response to the proposals outlined above. The finalised SoCC will be published as per the statutory requirements set out in Section 47 of the Planning Act 2008.

2.6 Information, advice and recommendations from the above parties will be considered and, where appropriate, incorporated into the design of the project and in preparing the Development Consent Order application and associated documents, including the ES.

Southampton Scoping Statement v4.0 Page 8 September 2010

3.0 THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SITE

3.1 The application site lies within the operational area of the Port of Southampton which is situated on , approximately 1.5 km from the centre of . The proposed scheme will be located within the Port of Southampton’s Western Docks adjacent to Millbrook Railfreight Terminal and Millbrook (Hants) railway station. The site lies within the administrative area of Southampton City Council, within the County of Hampshire. The location of the application site is indicated on plan number SPTN-9003-1.0.

3.2 The main application site comprises an area of land of approximately 20 acres, located to the north of the Port of Southampton’s Western Docks. The Grid Reference for the site is SU 396 124. The boundary of the main application site is indicated on plans SPTN-9001-2.0 and SPTN-9002-2.0. In addition to the main site, the scheme will make provision for a small pump house building and above ground water grey water abstraction equipment in the vicinity of the Grade II Listed King George V Dock on a site of approximately 80 m2.

3.3 The plot is flat with a hardstanding surface with one building, a former electrical substation, remaining which is no longer in use. The main site is currently split into two sections consisting of the a large area, which is currently operated by ABP, and a smaller area to the north and east, which is currently under agreement with a third party for car storage. An automobile oil filter factory was previously located on the larger section of the site. Following the demolition of the factory, the area is now utilised for bulk storage (including road salt, aggregates, minerals, glass cullet and biomass cargoes) along with the storage of cars, containers and general cargoes. Short term occupation agreements may be granted on the main section of the site, or parts of that section, during the Option period. The potential area for the pump house is an open area used for storage of port cargos

3.4 To the east, land is used for car storage and beyond warehousing, the Mayflower Cruise Terminal, the Fruit Terminal and the City Cruise Terminal. Usborne Fertiliser Ltd, a COMAH designated operation, is located approximately 220 metres southwest of the subject site. West Bay Road (an internal port road) runs along the southern boundary of the site, beyond which is an area currently used for container storage. The Port’s bulk material terminal is located to the south of the proposed site. It is the intention that the site will be linked to the quay by an enclosed conveyor.

3.5 To the southwest, beyond the King George V Dock, there is a vehicle terminal, further car storage, the Prince Charles Container Terminal, the Maritime Rail Freight Terminal and the Redbridge Vehicle Terminal. Immediately west of the proposed site is an area currently used for car storage.

3.1 An overhead electricity line runs along the northern boundary of the site, adjacent to the boundary of the port land. A multi-track railway runs along the Western Docks northern boundary, approximately 30 metres from the subject site. These lines serve both passenger and freight transport, giving access to the Millbrook Railfreight Terminal and its associated sidings located on the northern side of the railway, and a separate access to the Port of Southampton to the South. The A3024, a three-

Southampton Scoping Statement v4.0 Page 9 September 2010

lane dual carriageway, runs adjacent to the railway. A slipway, which also provides access to the Millbrook (Hants) railway station, joins the A3024 as it passes the northeast end of the proposed site.

3.6 Vehicular access to the site is obtained, through a private system of internal port access roads, from Dock Gates 20, located west of the subject site. Access can also be obtained from Dock Gates 8 and 10. Dock Gate 20, located approximately 2.4 kilometres from the site, provides direct access to the principal highway network ,along First Avenue. The M271 is approximately 1.5 km to the northwest from Dock Gate 20, along the A35. The M271 heads north to join the M27 at Junction 3. Dock Gates 8 and 10 are located to the east of the site, at a distance of approximately 1.6 km and 2.3 km respectively, and also link to the principal road network.

3.7 Western Docks are served by an internal railway line which links to the national railway network northwest of the subject site, adjacent to the Millbrook Railfreight Terminal. The nearest railway station is Millbrook (Hants) Railway Station, located approximately 50 metres north of the subject site. The railway station is not directly accessible from the Port with access achieved via the A3024.

3.8 There are no public rights of way across or in the vicinity of the application site or within the operational area of the Port.

3.9 The site is located within the ward, within the City of Southampton. The closest residential development is located approximately 125 metres from the site’s northern boundary.

Alternative locations

3.10 Helius Energy is seeking to develop a number of commercial biomass fuelled power plant around the UK and investigations are ongoing on a number of potential sites.

3.11 Large biomass plant (c. 100MWe) will be fuelled predominately from biomass transported to site by sea, although locally sourced biomass will be used where available and transported by road or rail. In order to minimise the environmental impact of such schemes and to avoid the economic costs of double handling the fuel, the optimum location for such plant will generally be at or close to major Port locations with good road and rail links. In addition, due to the substantial economies of transporting biomass in larger vessels, deep water ports will be preferred locations.

3.12 Southampton has been selected as it is a commercial deep water port on the south coast with existing bulk handling capability. ABP have made a site at the Port of Southampton available to Helius Energy in an area where larger scale development sites are few. The site meets the requirements for a project of this nature as it has an appropriate land use designation, ready access to the existing bulk material handling quay, excellent access to the principal road network through Dock Gate 20, rail bourn handling facilities nearby and a good connection to the adjacent electricity grid system. The site also has the necessary services and drainage infrastructure, including water, to provide for the scheme. The location of the site is close to the Greater Southampton area which is seen as a potential catchment area for some of the biomass fuel the plant will use. In addition, the

Southampton Scoping Statement v4.0 Page 10 September 2010

site is close to existing development offering potential opportunities for the use of heat and steam from the plant. Due to these characteristics, it is considered that the site represents a reasonable prospect for securing the necessary consents to build and operate the scheme.

3.13 The ES will set out the Site Specification utilised in ongoing site searches and provide further details on the site selection process.

Southampton Scoping Statement v4.0 Page 11 September 2010

4.0 THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS

Project Objectives

4.1 The principal function of this facility is to process a variety of biomass feedstocks into base load electricity (and heat if suitable commercial opportunities can be identified). This will provide the consequent environmental benefits in the form of carbon emissions savings and greenhouse gas emissions reductions compared to electricity generated from fossil fuel based energy feedstocks such as coal, oil and gas. The output of the plant will be supplied directly to the local electricity distribution network at 132kV. The proposed connection point is to the adjacent Millbrook Southampton 132kV circuits via underground cables. The cables will be routed from either Tower SM8 or Tower SM9 to a new substation that will be part of the plant via underground cables. Potential heat and steam users in the vicinity of the scheme that may be able to utilise heat or steam from the plant are currently being investigated. Electricity production from the plant will be equivalent to the average electrical consumption of about 200,000 homes.

Process Description

4.2 Fuel Feedstock: Biomass fuel feedstocks will comprise wood fuel in the form of virgin wood fibre (whole logs, chipped roundwood, slabwood, offcuts, peelings, butt reducing chips and bark), recycled wood and energy crops together with other biomass material including solid recovered fuel, residues from processing cereals (wheat, barley and maize) and oilseeds (rapeseed, sunflower and other oilseeds), all supplied in the form of logs, loose material, chips, pellets or briquettes, that qualify as renewable fuels under the provisions of the Renewables Obligation 2009.

4.3 The plant will utilise between 700,000 and 800,000 tonnes (as delivered) of biomass material per annum. The majority of the fuel required will be sourced from UK and international sources (Southern Europe, North West Europe and the Americas) and delivered through the Port of Southampton’s bulk handling terminal and transferred to the site via a purpose built conveyor. It is anticipated that up to 200,000 tonnes of fuel may be sourced locally if commercially available and delivered to the site by road or rail. Initial investigations have confirmed the availability of sufficient fuel for the plant meeting relevant sustainability requirements.

4.4 The fuel will be sustainably sourced and will comply with sustainable procurement practice as required by emerging EU guidance and UK Regulations, as overseen by OFGEM through the Renewables Obligation Regulations 2009 and subsequent amendments, and as set out in Helius Energy’s Corporate Sustainability Strategy.

4.5 Fuel storage for up to 10 days usage of fuel will be constructed. Having regard to the need to accommodate intermittent delivery from large bulk carriers and the need to segregate different

Southampton Scoping Statement v4.0 Page 12 September 2010

biomass fuel types, fuel storage with a capacity of circa 250 000 m3 storage will be needed on site. This will comprise a main fuel store and two smaller silos.

4.6 For locally obtained supplies, standard heavy goods vehicles will each carry approximately 25 tonne loads. Biomass material received on site by vehicle will be logged, weighed and unloaded by tipping into a dedicated covered biomass reception facility from where it will be fed into the biomass stores by an enclosed conveyor.

4.7 The delivery of fuel feedstocks to the site by rail may also be considered where commercially viable, using existing rail infrastructure within the Port.

4.8 Transfer systems consisting of enclosed conveyors will transport the fuel from the unloading stations to the stores and from the stores to the boiler metering bins.

4.9 The fuel stores and transfer systems will be equipped with dust and fire suppression systems in accordance with standard industry practice, and acceptable to the insurance requirements.

4.10 The main fuel store may be compartmentalised to allow the storage of different types of fuels and to permit mixing of fuels by mechanical means to deliver specific mixes to the boiler. The biomass building will be under negative pressure to minimise the release of odours.

4.11 The biomass facilities would employ appropriate vermin control systems to ensure there is no development of unwanted animal and insect populations.

4.12 Electricity Production: Helius Energy will use proven technology and processes for the plant. Production of steam is by conventional combustion of wood and other biomass mixtures using a circulating fluidised bed boiler and a conventional steam turbine. The steam temperatures and pressures will be within normal industry limits for power production.

4.13 Fuel feedstock will be blended and fed into the boiler system. The fuel will be burned in the boiler to produce high pressure and high temperature steam with a total rating of approximately 360

MWthermal. The steam will pass through a single steam turbine that will turn an electrical generator to produce up to 800 GWh per annum of electricity in full condensing mode for export/sale to the electrical network. Exhaust gases from the combustion process are passed through a flue gas cleaning system and finally vented into the atmosphere via a stack, to emissions standards to be approved by the Environment Agency pursuant to authorisation under the Environmental Permit Regulations. Bottom and fly ash will be recovered and recycled as building material or soil conditioner where possible or disposed of to landfill.

4.14 Spent steam from the turbine will be condensed and recycled to the boiler. The condensing medium will be either evaporative hybrid cooling towers, or, air-cooled condensers. Both options are indicated on the plant drawings.

Southampton Scoping Statement v4.0 Page 13 September 2010

4.15 In CHP mode, if appropriate and commercial applications can be found, electricity and steam from the electricity generating plant will exported and used in other processing activities in order to reduce the requirement for heat and electricity derived from fossil fuel sources. In the event that no commercially viable heat or steam users are identified prior to construction of the scheme, the plant will be designed to be ‘CHP Ready’ where provision will be made within the scheme design to allow for the take off of warm water/ steam should future commercial opportunities arise.

4.16 A basic project process flow is shown in Figure 4.16 below.

Figure 4.16 Process Flow

4.17 The principal plant inputs and outputs are set out in Table 4.17 below.

Table 4.17 Principal Plant Inputs and Outputs Substance Quantity Input/output Biomass Up to 800,000 tonnes per annum (as delivered) Input Sulphuric Acid Approx 400 tonnes per annum Input Caustic Soda Approx 200 tonnes per annum Input Sodium Bicarbonate Approximately 10,000 tonnes per annum Input [NaHCO3] Aqueous Ammonium Approximately 8,000 tonnes per annum Input Hydroxide [NH3(Aq)] Potable Water Consumption Approx 120,000 tonnes per annum Input Cooling Water Make Up Up to 3,000,000 tonnes per annum Input Electricity Approx 800 GWh per annum Output Ash/Soil Conditioner Approx 35,000 tonnes per annum Output Cooling Water Blow Down Up to 1,500,000 tonnes per annum Output

4.18 Raw water for the evaporative cooling tower make up will be piped to the power station and consumed at a steady rate equivalent to approximately 9,600 tonnes per day. Two sources of water

Southampton Scoping Statement v4.0 Page 14 September 2010

are being considered for the raw water required for the process, including cooling tower make-up where applicable, as well as two discharge routes for process purge. These options will be assessed within the ES and are indicated on Drawing SPTN-1004-2.0.

4.19 The first raw water option is to abstract from the at a suitable point along the quay side. The preferred extraction point is currently at the north eastern corner of the King George V Dock however alternative locations are currently being assessed. From the abstraction point, the cooling water will be piped, via a small pumping station located close to the Dock, through underground pipes to the site. Approximately 400m3/h (net) of grey water will be required for process cooling and ancillary purposes.

4.20 The second option is to utilise potable/mains water from one of the connection points indicated on Drawing SPTN-1004-2.0. The volume of water consumed will be approximately 40% lower if mains water is utilised for cooling due to the water quality.

4.21 Following use, water will be discharged from the site via one of two routes. The first option is to discharge the process purge water from the site via the existing culvert which runs along the northern and western boundary of the site into the River Test adjacent to the mouth of the King George V Dock at Berth 109. The second option is to send purge process water into Southern Water's mains sewer. All returned purge water will be subject to quality monitoring and, if applicable, Environmental Permitting.

4.22 Effort will be made to minimise the use of raw water through on-site recycling of process and surface run-off water.

4.23 Raw water for boiler make-up will be potable water. Potable water is conventionally demineralised using small quantities of sulphuric acid and caustic soda or through reverse osmosis to achieve an electrically and chemically neutral liquid typical of material used in all conventional steam cycle power stations. To maintain a good quality of demineralised water in the circuit a proportion of water is bled off continuously (blow down water) and the circuit is topped up with fresh demineralised water. The blow down water is extracted at a steady rate from the boiler equivalent to approximately 100 tonnes per day (ignoring small fugitive releases) and will be used in other on-site processes, if appropriate, or else discharged off site to standards as part of process water purge to be approved by the Environment Agency pursuant to authorisation under Environmental Permitting. Water treatment will be undertaken in new on-site facilities or alternatively piped to an existing water treatment facility for treatment and discharge.

4.24 An inventory of materials that will be stored on site is set out in Table 4.24 below.

Table 4.24 Inventory of Materials stored on Site Substance Maximum Quantity (tonnes) Biomass Fuel (Woody Biomass, Energy Crops, Oils Seed Up to 100,000 tonnes (as

Southampton Scoping Statement v4.0 Page 15 September 2010

Residues, Spent Grains) delivered)

Sulphuric Acid (H2SO4) Up to 10 tonnes Caustic Soda (NaOH) Up to 10 tonnes Hydrochloric Acid (HCl) Up to 10 tonnes

Ammonia (NH4OH). Up to 20 tonnes Sodium Bicarbonate [NaHCO3 Up to 120 tonnes Ammonium Hydroxide [NH3(Aq)] Up to 100 tonnes Diesel Fuel Up to 255 tonnes

4.25 The principal emissions sources from the project during operation are set out in Table 4.25 below.

Table 4.25 Principal emissions sources Substance Location Medium Boiler combustion gases Stack Air Bottom Ash Boiler Land Fly Ash Boiler Land Domestic Solid Refuse Staff locations Land Unserviceable plant and All site Land equipment Boiler Blowdown Boiler Water Cooling Water Purge Cooling Tower Water Site surface run off Hard surfaced areas Water Domestic foul water Staff locations Water

Design and Layout

4.26 The preliminary layout of the Primary Development on the site is shown on drawing SPTN-1005-2.0. The fuel store is situated at the eastern end of the site, with the boiler and stack located to the south of the site, adjacent to the turbine building. The cooling system is located south of the office, workshop and ancillary buildings to the western end of the site. The layout of the northern end of the site is constrained due to the presence of the overhead electricity line. Detailed design will be an iterative process and the proposed layout is subject to further consideration as the project design is progressed and further environmental mitigation considerations are incorporated into the scheme. Composite indicative elevations of the Primary Development are indicated on drawings SPTN-1002- 1.0 and SPTN-1003-1.0.

4.27 Staff vehicular and pedestrian access to the site will be obtained via internal Port access roads from Dock Gates 8, 10 or 20. Construction traffic and operational deliveries will use Gate 20 to access the site.

Southampton Scoping Statement v4.0 Page 16 September 2010

4.28 The approximate size of the principal buildings and structures is as follows (length x width x height in metres):

i. Main Biomass Store Building 166m x 90m x 35m ii. Auxiliary Biomass Fuel Stores 30m diameter x 42m height (x2) iii. Fuel Delivery Building (Road Deliveries) 60m x 40m x 20m iv. Boiler House 58m x 50m x 65m v. Steam Turbine Building 40m x 40m x 13m vi. Transformer Building 20m x 20m x 8m vii. Motor Control Centre Building 20m x 20m x 8m viii. Electrical Switch Gear Compound 50m x 30m x 2.5m (open fenced area) ix. Water Treatment Plant 20m x 20m x 8m x. Grey/Fresh Water Storage Tanks 30m diameter x 15m height xi. Stack Assembly 6m diameter x 100m height (provisional) xii. Flue Gas Cleaners 40m x 27m x 30m xiii. Cooling Assembly: Hybrid Tower 106m x 27m x 22m (provisional) Air Cooled Condensers 100m x 22m x 30m (provisional) xiv. Office Accommodation 46m x 18m x 8m xv. Storage/Workshop/Control Building 50m x 50m x 15m

4.29 The above dimensions exclude ancillary plant and equipment affixed to external surfaces and off site works.

4.30 The scheme will include internal access roads, hardstanding for vehicles and dedicated fuel handling areas together with associated engineering works. Car parking for employees will be provided to the standard of the local planning authority. The scheme will also provide for flood mitigation works and on-site amenity planting.

4.31 The site will require external lighting of the principal working areas for health and safety purposes. The form of the lighting would be directional cut off lighting units mounted on columns or directly on to buildings. This would include low level lighting on roadways and pedestrian routes, materials handling areas and comfort lighting to doorways. It is not anticipated that high level lighting would be required.

Development Programme

4.32 The construction and commissioning period for the project is expected to be approximately 36 months.

Southampton Scoping Statement v4.0 Page 17 September 2010

4.33 It is anticipated that, subject to receipt of necessary consents and permits, construction activities would commence in winter 2012.

Traffic Generation

4.34 The proposed scheme will generate additional traffic movements on the local highway network during construction, commissioning and operational phases.

Construction/commissioning

4.35 Depending on the stage of construction it is currently anticipated that HGV movements will range on average from 20-40 movements per day.

Operation

4.36 Once operational it is intended that the plant will receive the majority of its 700,000 to 800,000 tonne annual fuel feedstock through the Port, however up to 25% UK derived fuels may be delivered by road. In exceptional circumstances, e.g. closure of the port, all the fuel feedstock may be delivered by road for an indeterminate period. In light of this the Transport Assessment will seek to address the worst case scenario whereby all fuel feedstock would be delivered by road. The following provides a summary of the predicted trip attraction of the site and the worst case impact upon the local and strategic road network (SRN).

4.37 Fuel feedstock will be delivered six days per week for the full 52 weeks of the year, although deliveries would not take place on public holidays. This equates to a total of 304 potential delivery days: (52 weeks x 6 working days) – 8 public holidays = 304 delivery days.

4.38 With up to 800,000 tonnes of fuel being required per annum, the likely quantity of fuel to be delivered per day is up to 2,631 tonnes: 800,000 tonnes per annum / 304 delivery days = 2,631 tonnes per day

4.39 With an HGV capable of transporting approximately 25 tonnes of fuel feedstock, up to 105 vehicles will be required to deliver this feedstock per day: 2,631 tonnes per day / 25 tonnes per HGV = 105 HGVs per day

4.40 It is anticipated that there will be a 12 hour period each day during which deliveries may arrive on site, spanning the hours between 07.00 and 19.00. In any hour during which deliveries could take place, up to 9 inbound vehicles can be expected:

Southampton Scoping Statement v4.0 Page 18 September 2010

105 HGVs per day / 12 hours per day = 8.75 HGVs per hour

4.41 In addition to fuel feedstock it is envisaged up to four HGVs per day will be required to remove ash from the plant with a further 2 HGVs for incidental deliveries. Therefore, in total, the site can be expected to receive up to 111 HGVs per day or 10 per hour.

4.42 Staff trip generation will be determined using a first principles approach based on the number of staff to be employed on site and the anticipated pattern of their arrivals/departures. It is currently expected that approximately 40 staff will be employed on site working on a 5 shift pattern.

Sourcing of Plant Feedstocks/ Destination of Plant Products

4.43 It is intended that ordinarily the majority of the biomass fuel will be supplied through the Port of Southampton’s bulk terminal from international and possibly national sources. However, in the event such supplies were exceptionally precluded, biomass fuel for the power station would be delivered to the plant by road or rail. In such a situation it is anticipated the principal sources of the biomass fuel would be derived from a number of sources in approximate quantities according to the fuel supply matrix at Table 4.43 below.

Table 4.43 Indicative Sourcing of Biomass (Road Transport) Source Quantity (tonnes) South East England Up to 200,000 South West England Up to 200,000 Central England Up to 200,000 Midlands Up to 200,000

4.44 HGVs are expected to travel to the Port via the M271 - Redbridge Roundabout - A35 - Millbrook Roundabout - Dock Gate 20 and returning via the same route. Vehicles will distribute across the wider Strategic Road Network (SRN) in accordance with the source of biomass as identified in Table 4.43 above.

4.45 Electricity generated by the scheme will be exported to the electrical network through underground cables connecting to the 132kV overhead lines running adjacent to the site at either Tower SM8 located approximately 353m east of the site or Tower SM9 located approximately 80 metres northwest of the site at grid reference SU 394 127.

4.46 Steam or hot water generated for the purposes of industry will be sold to existing industrial enterprises where commercially viable opportunities are identified.

Southampton Scoping Statement v4.0 Page 19 September 2010

Operational Life

4.47 The plant will be designed to have an operational life of at least 25 years. Some elements of the plant would have service items that are designed to be replaced at regular intervals; other elements of plant subject to intermittent failure may require replacement at indeterminate intervals. The principal buildings and structures are likely to have an operational life exceeding 25 years.

Staffing

4.48 The estimated direct employment resulting from the construction of the plant is set out in Table 4.48 below.

Table 4.48 Employment – Plant Construction Employees Anticipated number (Full Time Equivalents) Managerial/ Professional 10 Secretarial and Administration 4 Construction operatives 24 rising to 250 at construction activity peak

4.49 In addition it is anticipated that the project would generate a demand for local services and supplies in the locality during the construction programme. The types of services that could be provided from existing enterprises in the locality include civil engineering and building skills, welding, mechanical and electrical installation skills, together with accommodation and catering.

4.50 The anticipated direct employment resulting from the operation of the plant, based on a five shift working pattern, is set out in Table 4.50 below.

Table 4.50 Employment – Plant Operation National Vocational Number of Personnel Role Qualification employees Level Facilities managers and financial control Senior management (degree level, member of relevant L6+ 1 professional body) Health and safety, engineering and utilities managers (further/higher education, member Managerial L5+ 3 of relevant professional body, industry compliant qualifications) Statutory compliance administration and Professional enforcement (emissions and operations) L5+ 3 (degree or equivalent)

Southampton Scoping Statement v4.0 Page 20 September 2010

Administrative duties including bookwork, Secretarial L3+ 1 data base management and sale records etc. Basic administration Telephonic, filing etc. L2+ 1 and reception Technical – Energy Trading and Fuel At least further education L4+ 1 Procurement Technician level educated to higher Technical - Engineering education level (high end technical skills and L4+ 12 experience up to degree level) Skilled and semi skilled technicians (standard Operations L3+ 15 and higher education) Operational support Manually skilled (NVQ) L2+ 3 staff Total 40 National Vocation Qualification levels L1 = Basic skills L2 = GCSE L3 = A Level L4 = Degree L5 = Post Graduate Qualification L6 = Masters and above L7 = PhD

4.51 The operation of the plant will require a range of goods and services that could potentially be provided by existing enterprises in the locality. The supply of such goods and services would create indirect employment at a ratio of up to x2 multiplier of direct jobs. It is likely such roles would include engineering and maintenance services, administrative, financial and legal services.

Southampton Scoping Statement v4.0 Page 21 September 2010

5.0 PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT

5.1 The site is located in the administrative area of Southampton City Council. The current Development Plan for the area comprises the saved policies from the Southampton Revised Local Plan and the adopted Southampton Core Strategy Development Plan Document.

Southampton Revised Local Plan

5.2 The Southampton Revised Local Plan was adopted in March 2006 and subsequently updated following the adoption of the Southampton Core Strategy Development Plan Document (DPD) in January 2010. The following Policies have been saved by the Secretary of State under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

5.3 The Proposals Map indicates the site is located within operational port land, therein Policy REI 14 applies and falls within a high flood risk zone, whereby Policy SDP 20 applies. Immediately north of the port land lies an area identified as a rail freight siding, whereby policy TI 4 applies. The Proposals Map indicates a number of sites along the northern boundary of the Port land are allocated for Business Industry Warehousing, whereby Policies REI 10 and REI 11 apply.

5.4 Although only partially located within the areas shown on the proposals map, there are a number of international level designated nature conservation sites within the vicinity of the proposals, to which Policy NE1 applies.

5.5 Whilst again only partially located within the areas shown on the proposals map, there are several Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) within the vicinity of the site, to which Policy NE 2 applies, as well as several Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs) located to the northeast and northwest, whereby Policy NE 3 applies.

5.6 In addition to the above, the Proposals Map indicates that a very small area of intertidal habitat is located approximately 2km to the west to which Policy NE 5 applies.

5.7 Large areas of Archaeological Remains are situated to the northeast and northwest of the operational port land, whereby Policy HE 6 applies. There are a handful of small areas allocated as existing open space within the residential area north of the sites. Each of these policies, and other generic policies, are now considered in the following paragraphs.

5.8 Policies RE 14, relating to Port Land, and SDP 20, relating to flood risk, have both subsequently been superseded by the Core Strategy Policies CS 9 and CS 23.

5.9 Policy TI 4 considers rail freight and siding sites and safeguards the land currently used for the provision of rail freight facilities and sidings.

Southampton Scoping Statement v4.0 Page 22 September 2010

5.10 Policies REI 10 and REI 11 safeguard the allocated sites for industrial, storage and distribution and research and development uses.

5.11 Policies NE1, NE 2 and NE 3 have been subsequently superseded by Core Strategy Policy CS 22.

5.12 Policy NE 5 considers intertidal mudflat habitats and precludes development which would result in the disturbance of the remaining intertidal mudflat habitat along the River Test or Southampton Water unless such development can demonstrate there would be no adverse impact on nature conservation interests and no net loss of intertidal mudflat habitat.

5.13 Policy HE 6 considers archaeological remains and states: “Planning permission will not be granted unless: (i) Proper consideration has been given to the preservation in situ or nationally important archaeological remains; or (ii) Where important archaeological remains may exist the impact of development upon the archaeological resource has been examined and evaluated; or (iii) Adequate provision has been made for the identification, investigation, recording and publication of the archaeological resource; or (iv) Adequate provision has been made for the preservation of remains of archaeological interest; or (v) A combination of the above clauses is effected as appropriate (whichever response is more appropriate to the perceived importance of the archaeological resource and the perceived nature of the threat). Permission will be refused where insufficient detail is provided to enable a full assessment of the proposal to be made.”

5.14 Policy SDP 1 considers the quality of development and states that planning permission will only be granted to development which does not unacceptably affect the health, safety and amenity of the city and its citizens. The remaining elements of the Policy have been superseded by Core Strategy Policy CS 13.

5.15 Policy SDP 7 considers the context of the development and precludes development which would cause material harm to the character and/or appearance of an area. Proposals are required to be compatible with existing land forms and natural features; respect the scale, density and proportion of existing buildings and integrate into the local community.

5.16 Policy SDP 9 considers the scale, massing and appearance of new development and requires building design to be of a high quality. The policy states that proposals should respect their surroundings in terms of: (i) “Scale, massing and visual impact; (ii) The impact on the skyline;

Southampton Scoping Statement v4.0 Page 23 September 2010

(iii) The quality and use of materials; (iv) The quality and use of architectural details; (v) The impact on surrounding land uses and local amenity.” In addition, the policy states that tall buildings and structures will only be permitted on appropriate sites in prescribed locations which include the waterfront.

5.17 Policy SDP 12 requires all permitted development proposals to include a landscape/habitat creation and management scheme appropriate to its setting, retaining and/or enhancing important landscape and wildlife habitat features, contributing to the objectives of the Local Biodiversity Action Plan; and reflecting the character of the locality.

5.18 Resource conservation is considered by Policy SPD 13 which requires developments to be designed in such a way as to minimise the overall demand for resources. As such, applications will need to demonstrate that they have, where possible, maximised or incorporated the opportunity to reuse land and buildings. Other elements of Policy SPD 13 have been superseded by Core Strategy Policy CS 20.

5.19 Policy SDP 14 considers renewable energy and states that renewable and alternative sources of energy developments will be permitted providing there is no unacceptable impact on the natural environment. Further elements of the policy have been superseded by Core Strategy Policy CS 20.

5.20 Policy SPD 15 states that planning permission will be refused where the proposal would contribute significantly to the exceedence of National Air Quality Strategy Standards or be materially affected by existing and continuous poor air quality. The Policy also requires large potentially polluting developments to assess their air quality impact by detailed air dispersion modelling and appropriate monitoring.

5.21 Policy SPD 16 states that noise generating development which causes an unacceptable level of impact would not be permitted and applicants may be required to submit a noise impact report.

5.22 Policy SPD 17 requires that proposals with external lighting should be for the minimum required for security and working purposes ensuring light spill and potential glare is minimised and the choice and positioning of any equipment minimises the daytime appearance and streetscape impact.

5.23 Policy SDP 22 requires that applicants submitting proposals on land which is known to be, or may be, contaminated, must demonstrate that the potential for contamination has been properly assessed and that the development will incorporate any necessary remediation measures to ensure the long term safety of the development, preferably dealing with the contamination through in-situ remediation methods.

5.24 Policy NE 4, which has been partially replaced by Core Strategy Policy CS22, retains its reference to priority species in the UK Biodiversity Action Plan and any local Biodiversity Action Plan, and states Southampton Scoping Statement v4.0 Page 24 September 2010

that development will not be permitted that adversely affects the priority species unless there is a need for the development which outweighs the ecological importance of the site and the development can neither be met in less ecologically damaging locations nor by reasonable alternative means.

5.25 Policy NE 7 applies to development within or adjacent to the railway, which will only be permitted where it conforms with the prescribed design principles including treating the boundary as a public frontage in visual terms and screening outside storage or services areas from view.

5.26 Policy HE 3 considers listed buildings and states that proposals which would adversely affect the character or setting of a listed building or will compromise the future economic viability of the building will not be permitted. Sufficient information must be provided to allow a full assessment of the impact of a proposal on a listed building.

The Southampton Core Strategy Development Plan Document

5.27 The Southampton Core Strategy Development Plan Document (DPD) was adopted in January 2010, the first of the suite of Development Plan Documents that will form the Local Development Framework, pursuant to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. The DPD sets out 20 strategic objectives for the Core Strategy, which include promoting a dynamic, competitive economy, offering a wide range of secure and sustainable jobs, supporting the varied operations of the Port of Southampton and giving recognition to its role in the national, regional and local economy, and supporting the uptake of renewable energy and Combined Heat and Power (CHP) in the city.

5.28 The Key Diagram indicates that the site lies within the Port of Southampton, whereby Policy CS 9 applies. A major road and railway cross from east to west above the Port land, whereby Policy CS 18 applies, and the Key Diagram indicates there is a railway station located directly north of the site. There are a number of areas allocated for ‘main employment outside the city centre’ to the north and east of the proposed site. There are a number of ‘gateways’ identified on the Key Diagram, including at the junction of the A35 and the M271 and at Dock Gates 10, 8 and 4. The remaining area surrounding the Port is allocated as brownfield land. The City Centre is located at the eastern end of the Port of Southampton’s Western Docks while the town/district centre of Shirley is located to the north of the site. The Key Diagram also identifies an area of new major economic and housing development approximately 2 km northeast of the subject site. The above site specific policies, and other generic policies, are considered in the following paragraphs.

5.29 Policy CS 9 seeks to promote the Port of Southampton and facilitate growth of the International Gateway Port, within the boundaries of existing port land. The Policy states that such growth will be facilitated by refusing planning permission for non-port related development within the port.

5.30 Transport is considered within Policy CS 18, which seeks to support the regional economy, enhance air quality and achieve a modal shift to more environmentally sustainable transport through a

Southampton Scoping Statement v4.0 Page 25 September 2010

‘reduce-manage-invest’ approach. The Council will promote Southampton’s role as an international gateway and regional transport hub by supporting freight movements to and from the Port, favouring rail freight and transhipment; ensuring development will not prejudice the Port along the key road corridors; maintaining appropriate access to the strategic road network incorporating the A33, M271, M27, M3 and A34; ensuring good sustainable transport linkages with the wider South Hampshire sub-region; require a transport assessment (TA) and travel plan for major developments in order to assess their transport impact and recommend appropriate mitigation measures; and require new development to consider the impact on air quality, particularly in AQMAs through the promotion of access by sustainable modes of travel.

5.31 Policy CS 6 seeks to contribute to the objectives of increased economic and employment growth and competitiveness, as set out in the now revoked South East Plan through measures including the provision of support to the Port of Southampton and securing appropriate access to jobs for local people.

5.32 Policy CS 10 considers the health of the city and states that Health Impact Assessments may be required for major developments in order to assess how the development will impact on the health of residents.

5.33 Policy CS 13 requires development to follow a robust design process to ensure integration with the local surroundings; high quality design and positive effects on the health, safety and amenity of the city and its citizens.

5.34 Policy CS 20 sets out the Council’s approach to tackling and adapting to Climate Change. The Council intends to continue implementing the measures identified within the Climate Change and Air Quality Statement (2004). All non-residential buildings with a floor space of over 500 m2 will be required to meet BREEAM ‘excellent’ standard and all development must be low carbon or carbon neutral where appropriate. The proposed Carbon Offset Fund will be set up from 2012.

5.35 Policy CS 20 also requires consideration of the conservation of water resources, surface run-off management, measures to reduce/avoid water contamination and safeguard groundwater supply. Opportunities to site large-scale renewable or low-carbon energy generations centres will be identified through the City Centre Action Plan and the Sites and Policies DPD.

5.36 Policy CS 22, which replaces parts of policies NE1 to NE4 of the revised Local Plan, seeks to promote biodiversity and recognises that the effective protection of biodiversity cannot be achieved by focusing solely on land within the city. The Policy states that appropriate consideration will be given to internationally and nationally protected and important habitats and species; the retention, protection and enhancement of biological interest features; and the production of a net gain in biodiversity through development by designing in provisions for wildlife and ensuring any unavoidable impacts are appropriately mitigated.

Southampton Scoping Statement v4.0 Page 26 September 2010

5.37 Policy CS 23 states that PPS25 will be taken into account when considering flood risk in determining planning applications. Development must achieve an appropriate degree of safety, taking account of standard defences and sea level rise over the life of the development. Individual developments are instructed to prepare a scheme specific Flood Risk Assessment.

5.38 Policy CS 25 requires necessary infrastructure, services, facilities and amenities to meet the needs of the development to be available or provided at the appropriate time.

Other Material Considerations

5.39 The Development Plan will be the initial starting point for consideration of development proposals however there are a number of other documents which would be material planning considerations, and to which some weight will be given. These documents are as follows:

i The draft Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1) ii The draft National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3) iii Draft Local Development Framework Development Plan Documents iv The Port of Southampton Master Plan v Local Planning Policy for Council

Each of these is now considered in turn.

Draft Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1)

5.40 DECC are responsible for publishing the National Policy Statements (NPSs) relating to Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs) under the Planning Act 2008. The Government announced in June 2010 that, despite the intention to abolish the IPC and replace it with a Major Infrastructure Planning Unit within the Planning Inspectorate, they intend to continue with the process to designate the draft NSPs. If any application reaches decision stage before the relevant NPS has been designated, the IPC will make a recommendation to the Secretary of State. Under the current regime, once an NPS has been designated, the IPC Commissioner must have regard to it, regardless of how late in the application process it is published, and the IPC will determine the application.

5.41 Public consultation on the draft Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1) was undertaken by DECC between November 2009 and February 2010. On the 15th July 2010 DECC announced that a second consultation would be undertaken in the Autumn of 2010 on changes to the draft NPSs and revised Appraisal of Sustainability. DECC also stated their intention to present the finalised Energy NPSs to Parliament for ratification in Spring 2011.

5.42 The draft Overarching NPS for Energy (EN-1) sets out the Government’s energy policy for the delivery of major energy infrastructure; explores the need for new energy infrastructure; and instructs Southampton Scoping Statement v4.0 Page 27 September 2010

the IPC on how to assess the environmental impacts of energy infrastructure development in general. EN-1 is to be read in conjunction with the more relevant ‘technology-specific’ NPSs, EN-3 in the case of renewable energy.

5.43 Part Two of the draft EN-1 sets out the Government’s energy strategy which includes helping to deliver the UK’s obligation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050 and work to carbon budgets resulting from the Climate Change Act 2008; ensuring that investment in energy provides security of energy supply through a diverse and reliable mix of fuels and low carbon technologies; ensuring that investment in an electricity grid resulting in greater capacity and the ability to manage large fluctuations in supply and demand; and contributing to sustainable development through energy infrastructure development that helps reduce climate change and minimises the negative impacts on the local environment.

5.44 Part Three of the draft NPS sets out the need for new energy infrastructure, based on the 2009 Low Carbon Transition Plan which provides the intended strategy to meet Britain’s energy needs over the coming decades. The strategy includes a significant change in the existing power sector towards low-carbon forms of electricity generation based around renewables, nuclear power and fossil fuels with Carbon Capture Storage; increasing the electricity generating infrastructure by 43GW by 2020 and 60GW by 2025 to ensure adequate supplies due to the changes in the nature of generating capacity; and increasing the level of renewable electricity generation to approximately 30% of the national capacity by 2020, primarily through onshore and offshore wind generation and bioenergy, with increases in the latter being possible and desirable. The NPS states that there is significant need for new major energy infrastructure which can be met by projects coming through quickly. The NPS directs the IPC: “to start its assessment of applications for infrastructure covered by the energy NPSs on the basis that need has been demonstrated. The IPC does not need to considered the relative advantages of one technology over another given the Government’s view that companies should be permitted to determine the individual projects to bring forward within the strategic framework set by the Government, taking account of the clear benefits of a diverse energy mix.”

5.45 The assessment principles for the IPC to follow and considerations for generic impacts across all forms of energy infrastructure are set out in Part Four of the draft NPS. The key principles to which the IPC should adhere when examining and determining applications for energy infrastructure are set out in paragraph 4.1.1: i. “Given the level of need for energy infrastructure as set out in Part 3 of this NPS, if the development proposal is in accordance with this NPS and any relevant technology- specific NPS, then the IPC should operate on the basis that consent should be given, except to the extent that any of the exceptions set out in the Planning Act apply (see paragraph 1.1.2 above). ii. The Planning Act requires the IPC to have regard to the following, in additional to any relevant NPS: any local impact report submitted by a relevant local authority before

Southampton Scoping Statement v4.0 Page 28 September 2010

the deadline for its receipt by the IPC; any matters prescribed in relation to the development of the description to which the application related; any Marine Policy Statement (MPS) or marine plan; and other matters which the IPC considers to be both important and relevant to its decision. iii. The IPC should take into account the national, regional and local benefits (environmental, social and economic) including the contribution to the need for energy infrastructure, job creation, and any long-term or wider benefits. These may be identified in this NPS, the relevant technology-specific NPS, in the application or elsewhere. iv. The IPC should take into account adverse impact – environmental, social and economic – including those identified in this NPS and the relevant technology-specific NPS, as well as local impacts identified in the application or otherwise. The IPC should ensure it takes account of any longer-term adverse impacts that have been identified and any cumulative adverse impacts. v. If the IPC is satisfied that the adverse impacts identified (including any cumulative impacts) outweigh the benefits of the proposed development (taking into account measures to avoid, reduce or compensate for those adverse impacts) consent should be refused.”

5.46 Part Four for the draft EN-1 goes on to outline potential environmental impacts generic to all types of energy generation and instructs the IPC on what to expect from an applicant’s assessment of those effects and directs the IPC’s decision making with regards to the individual impacts.

5.47 Section 4.6 considers Combined Heat and Power (CHP) and sets out the bodies with whom the applicant is expected to consult. The draft NPS directs the IPC to give substantial additional positive weight to applications incorporating CHP.

5.48 Section 4.8 considers climate change adaptation, recognising at new energy infrastructure will typically remain operational over many decades and states: “Consequently, applicants must consider the impacts of climate change when planning the location, design, build, operation and, where appropriate, decommissioning of new energy infrastructure. The ES should set out how the proposal will take account of the projected impacts of climate change.”

5.49 Section 4.10 considers pollution control and other environmental consenting regimes and states: “The IPC should focus on whether the development itself is an acceptable use of the land, and on the impacts of that use, rather than the control of processes, emissions or discharges themselves. The IPC should work on the assumption that the relevant pollution control regime will be properly applied and enforced. It should act to complement but not seek to duplicate it.”

Southampton Scoping Statement v4.0 Page 29 September 2010

Draft National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3)

5.50 The draft National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3) is the technology- specific NPS for onshore and offshore wind energy, energy from waste and biomass, and is to be read in conjunction with EN-1. EN-3 sets out guidance that is additional to that on generic impacts set out in EN-1. The first round of public consultation on EN-3 was undertaken in conjunction with the EN-1 consultation and, following DECC’s announcement in July 2010, EN-3 will also be subject to a second round of consultation in the autumn of 2010.

5.51 Section 2.5 considers biomass and waste combustion and sets out the expected types of biomass fuels from both domestic and imported supplies. Paragraph 2.5.10 outlines the requirement for biomass plant operators to submit an annual report to Ofgem regarding the sustainability of the biomass fuel sources in order to gain ROCs on their output. EN-3 goes on to state that: “Given that operators will need to provide information on the sustainability of the biomass used to Ofgem and will also need to comply with any other requirements of restrictions that arise, the IPC does not need to consider the source or sustainability of the proposed biomass fuel to be used within the proposed plant.”

5.52 The draft NPS sets out the expected components of a biomass or waste scheme and the factors which may influence site selection for such schemes. The flexibility of project details is also considered and the IPC is instructed to accept that precise details of all elements of proposed biomass or waste schemes may now be known until some time after the consent is granted. Those elements should be identified and reasons provided to allow some flexibility in the consent. Where precise details are not yet known, applicants are directed to assume the maximum potential adverse effects the scheme may have.

5.53 The technology-specific impacts from biomass and waste schemes are set out within paragraphs 2.5.30-2.5.73 and include air quality and emissions, landscape and visual effects and residue management.

Draft Local Development Framework Development Plan Documents

5.54 The preparation of the Sites and Policies DPD started in March 2009 and the Council intend to publish the Issues and Options documents for public participation in September 2010 with adoption of the Sites and Policies DPD currently scheduled for January 2013. The DPD will combine the site allocations and development control policies together and will supersede the present Revised Local Plan Proposals Map once adopted.

The Port of Southampton Master Plan

Southampton Scoping Statement v4.0 Page 30 September 2010

5.55 ABP Southampton recently published the Port of Southampton Master Plan 2009-2030 in line with the Government recommendations within the Interim Report on the ports policy review in 2007. The Master Plan sets out the Port’s strategic plans for the period, identifying areas of Port owned land which can be sustainably developed to meet the growth in maritime trade to inform local and regional planning bodies and network providers when preparing their own development strategies.

5.56 The Plan anticipates a significant increase in container handling over the period of the Plan and states the Port intends to extend the current facilities along with further investment in multi-decked vehicle car compounds and a fifth cruise terminal in the Western Docks. The Plan states that dry bulk handling is anticipated to rise by around 60%.

5.57 The subject site is allocated for ‘Port Related Uses (Excluding containers)’ within the Master Plan, from the current period through to the end of the plan period in 2030. The Master Plan recognises the growth of the biomass sector is likely to have a positive impact on the volumes of dry bulk being handled and stored within the Port over the plan period and acknowledges the port’s ability to provide suitable locations for small-scale renewable-fuel energy plants within the port estate.

New Forest District Council Planning Policy

5.58 The New Forest District Council administration area lies directly across the River Test, less than 1km from the proposed site. The Council has been identified as a Section 42 Statutory Consultee and as a result, any potential impact of a proposed scheme on their administrative area should be assessed against their relevant planning policies. The current Local Development Plan consists of the saved policies within the New Forest Local Plan First Alteration, adopted in 2005, and the Core Strategy Development Plan Document, adopted in October 2009.

The New Forest Local Plan First Alteration

5.59 The Proposals Map within the New Forest Local Plan First Alteration indicates that the land immediately opposite the subject site is allocated for industry/business, including a power station, now developed, and subject to the provision of public access to Cracknore Hard and the waterfront. The mud flats along the foreshore are allocated as Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation, whereby Policy DW-E38 applies which states that development which is likely to harm such sites would not be permitted unless the conservation value is outweighed by other material considerations.

The New Forest Core Strategy

5.60 The Core Strategy Development Plan Document contains a Key Diagram which identifies the Port of Southampton. The Key Diagram identifies several points of ‘Key Interaction’ between the administrative areas of the two Councils, including one between the Port land and Marchwood.

Southampton Scoping Statement v4.0 Page 31 September 2010

5.61 Policy CS4 considers energy and resource use and states that local opportunities to contribute towards energy supply from renewable and low-carbon technologies will be facilitated where there is no over-riding adverse local impact.

Regional Planning Policy

5.62 On the 6th July 2010, the Secretary of State revoked all Regional Strategies under s79(6) of the Local Democracy Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 and stated that Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) documents will no longer form part of the development plan for the purposes of s38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. The abolition of Regional Strategies will require legislation in the "Localism Bill" which will be progressed later this year.

5.63 The Department of Communities and Local Government advised on the 6th July 2010 that the Development Plan will consist of adopted Development Plan Documents (DPDs); any saved policies; and any old style plans that have not lapsed. While the status of RSSs has changed, evidence that informed their preparation may be a material consideration.

Nature Conservation Designations

5.64 There are a number of designated sites of international, national and local importance for nature conservation in the vicinity of the subject site that are described in more detail below at paragraphs 6.26-6.42. International level sites include Special Protection Areas (SPAs) and Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) designated under the European Birds and Habitats Directives, as well as Ramsar sites, which are wetland of international importance designated under the Ramsar Convention of 1971. There are also a number of Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) (nationally designated sites), and Local Nature Reserves (LNRs) nearby. The locations of these internationally, nationally and locally designated sites are shown on Maps 1 and 2 within Appendix B.

5.65 Up to date locations and boundaries of Local Wildlife Sites (LWSs), known locally as Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs), will be established through a data request made to the local biological records centre as part of the EIA process to establish any changes that have taken place since the production of the Southampton Revised Local Plan proposals map. The habitats and species for which these sites were designated will also be ascertained in order to establish their particular sensitivities to potential impacts.

Other Statutory Designations

5.66 New Forest National Park is located some 2.6km to the southwest of the subject site. The New Forest National Park was created in March 2005 to conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the Park and to promote opportunities for understanding and enjoyment of its special qualities.

Southampton Scoping Statement v4.0 Page 32 September 2010

5.67 There are approximately 40 Scheduled Monuments within 5km of the subject site. Closest to the site are the Conduit Head, Hill Lane and Commercial Road sites, situated approximately 1.75km east.

Air Quality Management Areas

5.68 Southampton City Council has designated 8 Air Quality Management Areas (AQMA) within the city. Southampton City Council has a statutory duty to review and assess air quality and state the intention to significantly reduce the area of the city covered by AQMAs by 2015.

5.69 The Millbrook Road AQMA is located approximately 90 metres north of the proposed site. The AQMA was declared as a result of predicted exceedences of the annual mean objective for nitrogen dioxide by the target date of December 2005. Southampton City Council’s Air Quality Action Plan states that the main source of pollution in the city’s AQMAs is from road traffic and as such, the Action Plan seeks to integrate with the Local Transport Plan policies which include a package of measures to contribute to reducing road traffic emissions and congestion across the city of Southampton. These include strategic highway alterations, improved accessibility for pedestrians and public transport and improvements to the Millbrook roundabout at the Dock Gate 20 entrance to the Port of Southampton which were completed in 2008. The Local Transport Plan will also investigate targeting the container terminal freight fleet to raise engine standards and explore alternative routes from the M271 to the container terminal. Consultation on a proposed amendment to the Millbrook Road AQMA was undertaken in June 2010 which proposes to extend the AQMA area to both the east and west, to encompass the entire extent of Millbrook Road West.

Southampton Scoping Statement v4.0 Page 33 September 2010

6.0 BASELINE CONDITIONS

Baseline Date

6.1 Identification of the baseline conditions of the site and locality, against which the potential environmental effects of a proposed development can be assessed is an important component of the scoping process. A number of baseline studies have been undertaken which provided additional data to that available from previous site studies. The need for further studies will be considered as part of the EIA and the evolving design of the project.

6.2 The baseline has been taken as the conditions pertaining on the site as at August 2010. The assessment of effects will have regard to existing and known proposals in the locality. However, it is acknowledged that other future developments and changes could have an effect upon future conditions e.g. through cumulative effects.

Data Review

6.3 The collection of environmental information relating to the application site and surrounding area is a continuous process. In addition to informing the design process, these data will be used as the baseline against which the impacts of the proposals will be assessed. This information will be used to assess and compare potential impacts, establish potentially sensitive receptors and also to assist the formulation of mitigation strategies.

6.4 A range of data relating to the site and the surrounding area has been obtained as part of the Scoping Study. The main sources of this information have been site-specific surveys, desk top evaluation of published data and review of supporting information to other relevant development proposals.

Summary of Anticipated Existing Conditions

Land Use and Planning Policies

6.5 The planning policies and material considerations set out in Section 5.0 will form the baseline for the land use and planning policies assessment.

Air Quality

6.6 Estimated background air pollutant concentrations at the site, based on 1 km grid squares (taken from the National Air Quality Information Archive) are well below the UK air quality objective values for the protection of human health.

Southampton Scoping Statement v4.0 Page 34 September 2010

6.7 Southampton City Council has however designated an area encompassing part of Millbrook Road as an Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) as set out in paragraphs 5.68-5.69 above. The Millbrook Road AQMA is located approximately 90 metres north of the proposed site.

6.8 The UK objectives for SO2 for the protection of vegetation and ecosystems are not exceeded at any relevant locations.

6.9 The UK objectives for NOx for the protection of vegetation and ecosystems are exceeded at Solent Maritime SSSI, River Itchen SSSI, Dibden Marshes SSSI and SSSI.

Landscape and Visual

6.10 The application site lies within the Port of Southampton which provides an industrial landscape characterised by tall industrial structures such as warehouses, cranes, silos, conveyors, terminal buildings and the container terminal and associated container storage. The Port is located within an urban setting and is approximately 1.5 km west of Southampton City Centre. Residential properties are located to the north of the operational port land.

6.11 The site and the local vicinity are not subject to local or statutory designations which seek to protect landscapes of value.

6.12 The site lies approximately 250 metres from the edge of River Test and therefore the proposed development is likely to be visible from the water and from the opposite bank. From all viewpoints the site is seen within the context of the existing industrial landscape.

6.13 Some locations within the Freemantle and Millbrook wards, located north of the proposed site, have been identified as sensitive visual receptors. The closest properties are located approximately 125 metres north, beyond the port boundary, a multi-track railway and a three lane dual carriageway. Passengers on the railway and travellers on the highway network are also sensitive visual receptors however these are considered to be of low importance.

Ecology

6.14 The ecological information that is provided in this section has been collated from a preliminary desktop study of secondary published and online information sources including, where designated sites are concerned, the Natura 2000 data sheets, Ramsar information sheets and SSSI citations for the relevant sites concerned.

6.15 For the purposes of establishing the baseline ecological environment and locating designated sites in the vicinity of the proposals for this Scoping Statement, an initial search area of around 5 km was set within which data was gathered. This search area will be expanded or contracted during the

Southampton Scoping Statement v4.0 Page 35 September 2010

course of the subsequent EIA process depending upon the anticipated Zone of Influence (ZOI) of the project emerging from the assessment process.

6.16 No ecological field investigation has been carried out for the purposes of producing this Scoping Statement, although it is anticipated that the EIA process itself will involve a wide scope of fieldwork investigations.

The Subject Site

6.17 From examination of aerial photography, the subject site itself appears to be mainly flat hardstanding with scattered low level rank vegetation, probably comprised mainly of ruderal weeds and similar scattered vegetation growing through cracks in hardstanding and perhaps becoming locally scrubby where unmanaged. There are no trees present on the site and it is very unlikely that the habitats present will be of any inherent value in terms of their botanical interest, antiquity or biological continuity.

6.18 The subject site has one building, a former substation and is bounded to the south, east and west by fencing. The site is currently used for storage purposes in connection with Port activities. To the north of the site, the Port’s boundary is marked by a fence line beyond which there is some vegetation running along the railway line.

6.19 In terms of fauna, the subject site has only very minimal likelihood of supporting any rare, notable or protected species. It may have limited potential to support unusual species of invertebrate owing to its position close to the estuary mouth and likely patches of bare ground. The building on site may have some potential to support bats, all species of which are European Protected Species under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, which transpose the Habitats Directive into domestic legislation.

6.20 The site itself is located close to a number of areas (both designated and un-designated) that are of considerable importance for overwintering birds, and although the site itself is unlikely to be used by these birds, it is possible that the airspace above the site is used as a flyway by birds moving between areas of coastal and inland habitats used for feeding and roosting.

Local Ecological Context

6.21 A Local Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) for the Southampton area has been written by Southampton City Council, and has been referenced in the preparation of this Scoping Statement.

6.22 Land use around the site to the south, east and west is industrial, predominately comprising hard standing with very limited vegetation cover. To the north, there is a multi-track railway line and a three lane dual carriageway. Some vegetation runs along the edge of the actively used railway line.

Southampton Scoping Statement v4.0 Page 36 September 2010

Features in the environs of the site include a railway container terminal, container storage, the King George V dock and car storage.

6.23 The subject site, and the immediately surrounding urban area of Southampton, is located within Natural England’s Natural Area 75: South Coast Plain & Hampshire Lowlands, with Natural Area 77: New Forest located on the opposite side of the estuary. The South Coast Plain and Hampshire Lowlands Natural Area supports some high quality chalk grassland and chalk rivers such as the Itchen and Test, the floodplains of which contain some botanically rich neutral grassland.

6.24 Important habitats of the South Coast Plain & Hampshire Lowlands Natural Area that are either known to be present or likely to be present closer to Southampton and to the subject site include coastal grazing marshes, saline lagoons, sand dunes and shingle, saltmarshes, reedbeds and rivers. Objective 1 of the Natural Area includes the enhancement and, where appropriate, expansion of the most important and characteristic habitats, which include intertidal mudflats, saltmarsh and saline lagoons. Data held on the Multi Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside (MAGIC) website shows areas of mudflats located on the opposite side of the estuary to the subject site.

6.25 Southampton Water is located to the south of the subject site and includes a patchwork of national and international nature conservation designations, described in greater detail below and shown on Maps 1 & 2 within Appendix B. The closest site of international and national importance is located approximately 1.2km southwest of the site.

International Level Nature Conservation Designations

6.26 Map 1 in Appendix B shows the locations of International level designated sites for nature conservation within around 5 km of the project, which forms the initial area of search. These sites are as follows:

i Solent & Southampton Water Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar Site; ii Solent Maritime Special Area of Conservation (SAC); iii The New Forest SPA, SAC & Ramsar Site; and iv The River Itchen SAC.

6.27 & Southampton Water Ramsar and SPA site is made up of a number of component areas located to the west, east and southeast of the subject site, including some 19 Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), the closest of these to the subject site are shown on Map 2 of Appendix B. The SPA and Ramsar designation also overlies part of the adjacent and contiguous Solent Maritime SAC.

6.28 The Solent & Southampton Water Ramsar and SPA follows along the coastline of the River Itchen and into the River Itchen Estuary. The designated area also encompasses the Lee-on-the-Solent to

Southampton Scoping Statement v4.0 Page 37 September 2010

Itchen Estuary SSSI. To the southeast of the proposed site, the Solent and Southampton Water Ramsar and SPA site is located on the opposite side of Southampton Water, at a distance of approximately 2.3 km, and stretches along the coastline of and beyond. The designated area also encompasses the Hythe to Marshes SSSI.

6.29 The Solent and Southampton Water Ramsar and SPA sites include the coastal habitats comprising of intertidal flats, saline lagoons, shingle beaches, saltmarsh, reedbeds, damp woodlands and grazing marsh. These habitats support the internationally important numbers of overwintering and breeding waterfowl for which the site was designated as an SPA under the European Birds and Habitats Directives, as well as the important assemblages of rare invertebrates and plants that together with the ornithological interest warrant the designation as a Ramsar site due to being a wetland of international importance.

6.30 The Solent Maritime SAC is designated under the European Habitats Directive for its internationally important habitat complexes, including its estuaries that have a hydrographic regime that is unique in Britain and Europe and support sediment habitats and extensive estuarine flats with areas supporting eelgrass Zostera sp, green algae, sand and shingle spits. The site also qualifies for its SAC designation for its Spartina swards, Atlantic salt meadows, and a range of other habitats and species that are qualifying features under Annexes 1 and 2 respectively of the Habitats Directive but not primary reasons for site selection, including the Desmoulin’s Whorl Snail Vertigo moulinsiana. The SAC is comprised of a number of component areas, including SSSIs.

6.31 The New Forest SPA, SAC and Ramsar site is located approximately 5 km south of the subject site. The site was designated as an SAC in part for a wide variety of habitat complexes listed in Annex 1 of the Habitats Directive including oligotrophic and mesotrophic standing water bodies with rare biophysical attributes that support important and unusual plant assemblages, wet and dry heaths, meadows with species rich grasslands, various forms of ancient Beech Fagus sylvatica and Oak Quercus spp woodlands, and bog and alluvial woodlands (both priority features). Other Annex 1 habitats are also present as qualifying features but not primary reasons for site selection, including transition mires and quaking bogs, and alkaline fens. The complex of habitats described above also support some species listed on Annex 2 of the Habitats Directive including Southern Damselfly Coenagrion mercuriale, Stag Beetle Lucanus cervus and Great Crested Newt Tritarus cristatus, which are all qualifying features for SAC designation, although the latter is not a primary reason for the selection of the site.

6.32 The unique habitats of the New Forest also support internationally important assemblages of birds listed in Annex 1 of the Birds Directive including breeding populations of Dartford Warbler Sylvia undata, Honey Buzzard Pernis apivorus, Nightjar Caprimulgus europaeus and Woodlark Lullula arborea and overwintering Hen Harrier Circus cyaneus that have also warranted its designation as an SPA.

Southampton Scoping Statement v4.0 Page 38 September 2010

6.33 The diverse range of valuable habitats present in the New Forest include the largest concentration of intact valley mires in Britain that are buffered from adverse ecological change due to the undeveloped and uncultivated nature of their catchments. This, in conjunction with the diverse range of rare plant and invertebrate species associated with wetlands, has also led to the New Forest being designated as a Ramsar wetland of international importance.

6.34 The final international level designated nature conservation site within the initial search area is the River Itchen SAC, designated for its chalk river habitat supporting various species of Ranunculus (water-crowfoot) that is of a type listed in Annex 1 of the Habitats Directive. Qualifying animal species present in the river that are listed in Annex 2 of the Habitats Directive include Southern Damselfly, Bullhead Cottus gobio, White-clawed crayfish Austropotamobius pallipes, Brook Lamprey Lampetra planeri, Atlantic Salmon Salmo salar and Otter Lutra lutra, of which the first two are primary reasons for the selection of the site.

National Level Nature Conservation Designations

6.35 The international designated sites discussed above include a number of component SSSIs that extend beyond the initial area of search, and these are not discussed further at this stage.

6.36 The following SSSI areas (whether component parts of international sites or not) fall either within or just outside of the initial area of search, and are shown on Map 2 of Appendix B:

i River Test SSSI; ii SSSI; iii Eling & Bury Marshes SSSI; iv The New Forest SSSI; v Southampton Common SSSI; vi Dibden Bay SSSI; vii Hythe to SSSI; viii Lee-on-Solent to Itchen Estuary SSSI; and ix River Itchen SSSI.

6.37 Of the above SSSIs, only Southampton Common SSSI and Dibden Bay SSSI are not also covered at least in part by an international level designation.

6.38 Southampton Common SSSI is located approximately 2.1 km to the northeast of the subject site. Key interest features include one of the largest populations of Great Created Newts Tritarus cristatus along with large populations of other amphibians. Much of the original ancient Oak woodland and wood pasture remains, and there are areas of botanical interest.

6.39 Dibden Bay SSSI is immediately adjacent to SSSI, and is mainly an area of reclaimed land formed from marine dredgings over a complex of coastal habitats. The lowest Southampton Scoping Statement v4.0 Page 39 September 2010

areas of the site have areas of salt marsh. The main interest on site is the outstanding assemblage of invertebrates, although it is also important for nesting Lapwing Vanellus vanellus and other breeding birds. Numerous waterfowl also overwinter on Dibden Bay SSSI and there are several nationally scarce plant species.

Local Level Nature Conservation Designations

6.40 The Local Nature Reserve (LNR) is located approximately 4.4 km north east of the subject site. The Bay is the only remaining stretch of undeveloped shoreline in the Lower Itchen, largely comprising of mudflats, which provide feeding grounds for wading birds and wildfowl including Oystercatchers, with a narrow strip of woodland running parallel to the shore and areas of shingle and salt marsh.

6.41 Common LNR is located somewhat further away, over 5 km to the southeast of the subject site, and contains areas of heathland, grassland and woodland.

6.42 As mentioned previously, the location, boundaries and conservation importance of current SINCs will be confirmed during the EIA process through a data request sent to the local biological records centre.

Historic Environment

6.43 Southampton is a historic city with a rich archaeological heritage and the site lies within ‘Area 16 The Rest Of Southampton Area of Archaeological Importance’ (designated in the City Council’s Local Plan and Core Strategy) which “encompasses the parts of the city not marked as areas 1 to 15. Anywhere within the city boundary is an area of potential archaeological importance, about which little is known at the moment.”

6.44 The site is also approximately 100m from the southeast corner of ‘Area 4 Millbrook Area of Archaeological Importance’. Millbrook village developed on the main road between Southampton and Redbridge and includes St Nicholas’ Church (demolished 1939) and its cemetery. Historic maps provided by Envirocheck and the Hampshire County Record Office show that the site is situated on an area of land which was in the River Test, or Southampton Water, until it was reclaimed as part of the 1930s dock extension scheme. Any archaeological activity associated with the medieval or post- medieval period would be restricted to riverine finds for example, boats or fishtraps. Elsewhere in Southampton hulks were beached on the river bank as the first stage of the reclamation process (Appleby pers comm.) and this may be the case at this location. Such finds would be at a depth of approximately 2.5m, buried beneath the 1930s reclamation material. Additionally, it is possible that there would be archaeological evidence of periods in pre-(or proto-)history when river levels were lower. On the opposite bank of the Test, where there has not been reclamation, Bronze Age features

Southampton Scoping Statement v4.0 Page 40 September 2010

are eroding out of the bank (Appleby pers comm.). Such features would be beneath the reclamation material and river deposits, approximately 2.5m or more below current ground level.

6.45 Although there are currently no designated built heritage assets within the main site, one development option does include a small pump house building and above ground water abstraction equipment which may be located in the vicinity of the Grade II Listed King George V Dock and No 7 pumping station. The Southampton Historic Environment Record lists a number of Listed and Locally Listed Buildings within 1km of the site as set out in Table 6.19.

Table 6.19 Listed and Locally Listed Buildings Name Status NGR Christ Church Listed Grade II SU40320 12607 350 Shirley Road Listed Grade II SU 40282 13319 369 and 371A Millbrook Road Listed Grade II SU 39324 12830 Western Docks - King George Listed Grade II SU 39353 12392 V Dry Dock Western Docks – No 7 pumping Listed Grade II SU 39326 12271 station at King George V Dry Dock 141 Paynes Road Locally Listed Building SU40128 12611

Each site should be considered individually in terms of the effect of the proposals on its setting, however, it should be noted that the site lies within a working dock area where cranes, pylons and large 20th century structures are already features of the setting. It is therefore considered unlikely that the proposed development would seriously compromise any setting further outside the Western Docks.

6.46 As the site formed part of the River Test during the historic period and has only been part of the landscape since the being reclaimed during the 1930s, it is considered that there are no historic landscape issues associated with its re-development within a 20th and 21st century dockland and urban setting.

Geo-Technical/ Geo Environmental

Geology

6.47 The British Geological Survey (BGS) 1:50,000 scale map of solid and drift geology for Southampton, Sheet 315, suggests that the site is underlain by Made Ground; areas filled with domestic and industrial material and dredged material from Southampton Water. This material is anticipated to be made up of the Bracklesham Group comprising of intertidal sedimentation with laminated clays and sands. The Made Ground is underlain by the Bracklesham Group (Earnley Sands & Marsh Farm

Southampton Scoping Statement v4.0 Page 41 September 2010

Formation overlying Wittering Formation) overlying the London Clay Formation and Lambeth Group above the Upper Chalk.

6.48 BGS borehole logs for the area suggest Made Ground is present to depths of approximately 2.3m below ground level, including an upper layer of ash. The Made Ground is underlain by drift deposits including silts, sands and gravels, which overly the Bracklesham Group.

Hydrology

6.49 The nearest recorded surface water feature is located approximately 161m south west of the site (King George V Dock).

Hydrogeology

6.50 The Made Ground beneath the site is considered to be unproductive strata. However the underlying sandy members of the Bracklesham Group, e.g. Earnley Sands, are classified as a Secondary A Aquifer. There are no potable groundwater abstractions within 1km of the site and the site does not lie within a Source Protection Zone.

Current Site Use

6.51 The main area of the site is mainly used for bulk storage. One building is present, formerly housing an electrical sub-station. Some evidence of staining is present on the surface of the hardstanding; red staining in the south west corner, extending over the roadway; dark brown staining and several patches of white staining. Gravel, tarmac and scrap are stored in a number of heaps around the site. Subsurface structures remain where historical buildings appear to have been demolished.

6.52 The northern area of the site is utilised as a car storage area. A fuel tank is located within this area with a refuelling pump and an adjacent hydraulic oil tank. An electrical sub-station is located on the south east border of the site.

6.53 The current land uses surrounding the site include further car storage, railway land, a container and scrap storage/breaker yard, a crate storage area and a vehicle storage area.

Site History

6.54 In 1871 the site was part of a tidal plain consisting of mud flats. By 1934 the land had been reclaimed due to the construction of a barrier to the south. The site was then developed as part of the Solent Mills passenger/goods dockland up until 1947, when a large motor works factory building was present, noted as an “Automobile and Electrical Product Works” in 1952-1956. Additional

Southampton Scoping Statement v4.0 Page 42 September 2010

buildings, including a depot and tanks were also present from 1947. A railway line ran through the site from 1945 until 1992/3. The buildings on site were demolished between 2006 and 2010.

6.55 The area surrounding the site was also part of the tidal plain mudflats until 1934. Large scale commercial/industrial development had occurred by 1945, including a scrap metal yard 312m west of the site, workshops 578m north and 120m south west and electrical sub-stations 96m and 160m north of the site. A railway line running along the northern and western boundaries on the site was also present. Further development continued until 2006 when a number of buildings were demolished. By 2010 the number of surrounding works had reduced further.

Environmental Setting

6.56 Records are available for one discharge consent relating to the site for sewage discharge to the saline estuary, however this was revoked in 1992. One Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control permit was recorded for the site, assigned to Bacardi Martini Ltd. Two Local Authority Pollution Prevention and Control permits were granted at the site relating to general coating processes. Three contemporary trade directory entries were found to relate to the site; two car component manufacturers and one brewery.

6.57 No recorded pollution incidents to controlled waters, registered radioactive substances, historical landfills, licensed waste management facilities, Control of Major Hazard sites, fuel stations or registered waste treatment/disposal sites were noted at the site.

6.58 The site is not in an area affected by radon.

Ground Stability Hazards

6.59 On site records suggest hazards associated with compressible ground, running sand and shrinking or swelling clay are present.

Potential Sources of Contamination

6.60 Potential on site sources of contamination include: a historical goods dockland; historical car component/oil filter manufacturing works/automotive and electrical product works; historical above ground tanks (bund status unknown); historical depots (unknown use); historical railway land; historical bulk storage (unknown items); car storage (if old or damaged cars); scrap storage; reclamation of land and Made Ground beneath the site; historical and current electrical sub-stations; and current fuel tank and hydraulic oil tank located within the Ford car storage area.

6.61 Potential off-site contamination sources include: the adjacent scrap storage yard; historical and current electrical sub-stations; historical and current works associated with Solent Mills/Docks; various tanks of unknown use and historical and current railway land. Southampton Scoping Statement v4.0 Page 43 September 2010

Potential Pathways

6.62 Potential pathways which may link the sources to the receptors include: direct contact, inhalation, ingestion; leaching to groundwater; groundwater migration; direct contact of chemically aggressive soil and groundwater with proposed buried structures and services; and migration of ground gases through soils.

Potential Receptors

6.63 Potential receptors relating to the proposed re-development of the site include: construction workers; future site users; proposed buildings and buried services; the underlying Secondary A Aquifer; and adjacent land and site users.

Potential Geotechnical Hazards

6.64 Potential geotechnical hazards relating to the proposed re-development of the site include: the presence of sub-surface obstructions, the stability of the reclaimed land/Made Ground and the properties of the water bearing interbedded clays and sands underlying the site.

Flooding and Site Drainage

6.65 The site is low lying with elevations varying between approximately 3.0 metres AOD and 4.0m AOD. The site generally falls from the south-west to north-east away from the quay wall and the River Test. There are no raised defences between the site and the River Test. The quay wall is an engineered concrete structure with a top level of approximately 3.5m AOD and will provide protection from some tidal and river flood events. This structure is recognised by the Environment Agency to be a flood defence. To the west of the site is a dry-dock, the King George V Dock, which has a top of wall level of approximately 3.25m AOD.

6.66 The Blighmont Crescent Stream, designated a Main River, according to information supplied by the Environment Agency, is culverted from a point immediately north of the site on Blighmont Crescent. The culvert is shown to run in a south-westerly direction past the northern boundary of the site before discharging into the River Test within or near to the King George V Dock. The culverting of this watercourse is recognised by the Environment Agency to be a form of flood defence.

6.67 The Shoreline Management policy for this section of Southampton Water (Management Unit TEST6) in relation to management of the sea defences is to ‘hold the line’.

6.68 The site is shown on the Environment Agency Flood Map and in the Partnership for Urban South Hampshire Strategic Flood Risk Assessment to be primarily within Flood Zone 1 with relatively small

Southampton Scoping Statement v4.0 Page 44 September 2010

areas of Flood Zones 2 and 3 on the north-eastern side of the site. Due to the proximity of the sea, Flood Zone 3 represents tidal flooding which is associated with the 1 in 200-year extreme tide event.

6.69 The site, as mentioned previously in this document, has a hardstanding surface comprising a mixture of concrete and tarmac. ABP have supplied information indicating there is a positive drainage system serving some parts of the site. Much of this system was associated with the former factory located on the site and is generally small diameter (≤300mm) pipework. The condition of the pipework, manholes and other features is unknown. The existing drainage discharges into the River Test. It is anticipated that the site drains to at least two outfalls: one to the east referred to as Outfall 10, and a second to the west discharging into a culverted watercourse. Details of the outfalls are subject to confirmation.

Highways and movement

6.70 The site is located within the Port of Southampton and as such benefits from existing transport infrastructure. The road network in the vicinity of the Port is well established for HGV use, due to the nature of Port operations. Access to/from the Port is via a number of Dock Gates from/to the A3024. The A3024/A35 provides access from the Port to the wider local highway network within Southampton and the M271 strategic road network (SRN), approximately 1.5km (on road) to the west of Dock Gate 20. The M271 provides connection from Southampton to the M27 which in turn connects the Port to the wider SRN.

6.71 Walking and cycling links from the Port access are good with footways provided on both sides of most external roads in the vicinity of the Port of Southampton. Pedestrian crossings provide access through to Millbrook, Shirley and the centre of Southampton. Traffic free and on-road cycle routes run along the A3024 run adjacent to the Port, providing links to nearby residential areas and the centre of Southampton.

6.72 Public transport facilities, by way of bus and train, are conveniently located for the Port. Bus stops are provided along the A3024 with these stops served by some nine services linking the Port to Southampton City Centre, Totton, Hythe and Fawley. The frequency of weekday services range from every 20 minutes to hourly. Rail services operate from Millbrook (Hants) railway station, located immediately to the north of the subject site, providing links between Southampton Central, Romsey and Salisbury.

Noise and Vibration

6.73 The operational area of the port is generally characterised by noise and vibration arising from various sources around the site including activities at the bulk and container terminals, industrial noise from the local works site and rail and traffic noise from the adjacent rail and road.

Southampton Scoping Statement v4.0 Page 45 September 2010

Social and Economy

6.74 Southampton is a major economic hub in South Hampshire and the South East with key sectors being transport/logistics, marine technology and business services. The City has two universities and an international airport along with the major international Port. Southampton’s Core Strategy (2010) identified areas for economic improvement which include increasing in the rates of economic activity, wage and skill levels, promotion of development opportunities and the replacement of jobs lost in manufacturing.

6.75 The Port of Southampton is one of the UK’s busiest ports and a principal driver in the regional economy. The port handles in excess of 42 million tonnes of cargo annually and its natural deep- water harbour allow the Port to handle the world’s largest vessels.

Aeronautical Context

6.76 Southampton Airport is located approximately 6.5km northeast of the subject site.

6.77 The effective utilisation of an aerodrome may be considerably influenced by natural features and man-made constructions inside and outside of its boundary. Consequently, certain areas of the local airspace must be regarded as integral parts of the aerodrome environment. The degree of freedom from obstacles in these areas is important in the granting of and retention of an aerodrome licence. The assessment will consider the potential for interaction of tall structures associated with the project with air traffic control facilities related to Southampton Airport.

Southampton Scoping Statement v4.0 Page 46 September 2010

7.0 IDENTIFYING ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

7.1 Paragraph 82 of Circular 2/99 indicates that the role of EIA is to examine: “The main or significant effects to which a development is likely to give rise.”

7.2 The purpose of scoping is to review possible effects or impacts and to determine which of these are likely to be significant.

7.3 Sections 3-6 of this report have outlined the general characteristics of the proposed development and the nature of the application site and its environs. Using this information as a basis, this section of the report considers the potential principal or significant impacts that should be included in the EIA.

Defining Significance

7.4 As far as the practical application of the term in the decision making process is concerned, a “significant effect” may be broadly defined as one which should be brought to the attention of decision makers. This definition is prescribed to varying degrees by statutory requirements (including EU and national guidelines and standards) and influenced by precedents established in previous EIAs.

7.5 Guidance on significance is mainly of a generic nature and practitioners have been obliged to develop definitions for specific topics and projects based on experience and locality. It is broadly accepted, however, that significance reflects the relationship between two factors:

i. The magnitude, duration and reversibility of an impact (i.e. the actual change taking place to the environment); and ii. The sensitivity, importance or value of the affected resource or receptor.

7.6 The magnitude of an impact is often quantifiable in terms of, for example, the extent of land take or predicted change in noise levels. Sensitivity, importance or value of the resource or receptor is normally derived from its designated status within the land use planning system or other legislation, the number of individual receptors, an empirical assessment on the basis of characteristics, such as rarity or condition, and its ability to absorb change.

7.7 Significant effects are likely to occur where valuable or sensitive resources, or numerous receptors, are subject to an impact of considerable magnitude. Effects are unlikely to be significant where low value or non-sensitive resources or a small number of receptors are subject to minor impact.

7.8 The difficulty in identifying potentially significant impacts at this scoping stage is that there is not always sufficient information available to make a conclusive judgement. In the case of the proposed

Southampton Scoping Statement v4.0 Page 47 September 2010

development site, the scheme and the environmental baseline information is considered, however, to be sufficiently well-defined to make reliable, clear decisions on the likely key issues that should be included in the EIA.

Identification of Key Issues

7.9 Guidance as to the content of an EIA is contained in Schedule 4 of the EIA Regulations. This requires, inter alia, the ES to include a: “… description of the aspects of the environment likely to be significantly affected by the proposed project, including, in particular, population, fauna, flora, soil, water, air, climate factors, material assets, including the architectural and archaeological heritage, landscape and inter-relationship between the above factor”

7.10 An inventory of topics likely to be relevant to this site is set out in Appendix A. Based on the scheme definition, local planning policies and the applicant’s knowledge of the site and its environs, a judgement has been made regarding which of these topics or particular aspects of them can be ‘scoped in’ and ‘scoped out’ of the EIA.

7.11 Issues that are scoped out of the EIA are those that are not anticipated to result in significant effects. The decision to scope out issues is based upon factors such as a high degree of development/receptor separation, the lack of identified impact pathways, or known low value or sensitivity of impacted resources.

7.12 It should be noted however that as the assessment proceeds, any omitted topics, i.e. those scoped out, will be reviewed and their significance may be re-evaluated in response to any additional information or changes material to the project definition or its assessment. The same would apply in terms of any new topics identified.

Assessment Criteria

7.13 For consistency, the following terms will be used throughout the ES to describe impacts:

i. Beneficial; ii. Neutral or negligible; iii. Adverse; iv. Short, medium or long term; v. Reversible or permanent; vi. Local level (i.e. on-site or neighbouring the site); vii. District level (within Southampton City Council administrative area); viii. Regional (Hampshire); ix. National level (UK); and Southampton Scoping Statement v4.0 Page 48 September 2010

x. International level (Europe and beyond).

7.14 For impacts described as beneficial or adverse the significance level will be defined as “minor, moderate or substantial”. This is the level of significance after mitigation.

Terminology

7.15 Where individual technical subject specialists are obliged to use different terminology for impact significance or magnitude categories by industry standard methodologies such as the ‘Guidelines to Ecological Impact Assessment’ (IEEM, 2006), they will state clearly how these relate to the common ES categories employed.

Southampton Scoping Statement v4.0 Page 49 September 2010

8.0 SCOPING THE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT

Methodology & Cumulative Impacts

Assessment Process

8.1 Specialists with relevant professional expertise and experience will carry out the assessment of each topic to be included within the scope of the EIA. These specialists will be responsible for ensuring the methods they use are appropriate, reflect best practice, and can be justified within the decision making process. The assessment process for each topic will adopt a common framework wherever possible. This will generally comprise the following steps:

i Introduction, detailing the authorship of the technical study, definition of the works to be assessed, identification and scoping of issues, and consultation with the relevant parties; ii Confirmation of scope; iii Collection of any required baseline and environmental data by research and survey; iv Re-evaluation of appropriateness and limitations of the assessment methodology; v Identification of resources and receptors; vi Prediction of impacts and robustness of these predictions; vii Identification of effects; viii Evaluation of significance; ix Identification of mitigation; x Evaluation of residual effects and risks; and xi Any requirement for future monitoring.

Mitigating Adverse Affects

8.2 Schedule 4 of the EIA Regulations states that an EIA should include: “A description of the measures envisaged in order to avoid, re-use and, if possible, remedy significant adverse affects.”

8.3 Such measures, often referred to as ‘mitigation’, may include the following:

i Mitigation incorporated into the design of the works during the design process; ii Additional mitigation applied to the project by means of physical measures; iii Mitigation through controls on operational or construction procedures; and iv Mitigation through providing environmental compensation where significant effects cannot be reasonably avoided.

Southampton Scoping Statement v4.0 Page 50 September 2010

8.4 The approach to mitigation will take account of the guidance given in the DETR document “Mitigation Measures in Environmental Statements” (1998). Any adverse impacts that might be associated with the mitigation measures themselves will be highlighted within the ES.

Assessment Scenarios

8.5 The approach to the assessment will be to evaluate the environmental impacts of the proposed works at the key stages in construction and development of the scheme and to compare them to a situation that would prevail at that time without the scheme (future baseline) and to the situation prevailing before the scheme is commenced (the current baseline).

8.6 It is intended that the scheme will commence development in 2012, subject to the grant of Development Consent together with other necessary consents, with completion/commissioning in 2015. Therefore, 2015 is taken as the basis for the future scenarios.

Project stages

8.7 Assessments will consider the construction, operation and decommissioning stages of the project.

Duration of Effects

8.8 The duration of an effect is one of the considerations in determining its significance. The EIA will distinguish between temporary and permanent effects on the following basis

8.9 The temporary effects are those which persist for a limited period only (e.g. during a particular construction activity or phase) or which may disappear due to the natural recovery of the environment or their assimilation into it over a reasonably short term; and

8.10 The permanent effects are those which are likely to be irreversible or which will persist for a substantial period of time.

8.11 Where temporary effects are identified, their duration will be estimated. The permanence or reversibility of effects will also be identified.

Spatial Scope

8.12 The geographical coverage of the EIA will be determined by reference to a number of factors including:

i The geographical extent of the effects (i.e. the ‘Zone of Influence’ of the proposals); ii The nature of the baseline environment including the location of sensitive receptors;

Southampton Scoping Statement v4.0 Page 51 September 2010

iii The distance over which impacts will be significant, and iv The presence and type of pathways along which impacts may be spread.

8.13 Separate study areas will be defined for each topic.

Cumulative Impacts

8.14 As well as assessing the scheme alone, qualitative and quantitative assessments will be carried out as appropriate to include other schemes which have been identified as potentially contributing to significant cumulative impacts. Such schemes may be:

i Built and operational; ii Under construction; iii Permitted application but not yet implemented; iv Submitted applications not yet determined; or v Identified in the Development Plan (subject to appropriate information being available).

Reference will be made to current guidance and best practice in considering such schemes.

Combined impacts

8.15 The combined impacts of the scheme, where a receptor will be affected by more than one environmental impact, will also be considered where appropriate.

Consideration of Alternatives

8.16 It is a requirement of the EIA Regulations, under Part II of Schedule 4, for the ES to report on the environmental consequences considered during the scheme design process. The ES will discuss the reasons for choosing the proposed site and the considerations that influence the layout of the scheme, such as transport links and design considerations. It will then outline and illustrate the evolution of the design alternatives leading to the current proposals having regard to the relationship with other built development, the constraints and opportunities presented by the site. Reference will be made to the need for the scheme, and in particular to strategic planning considerations and local planning and other policies.

Scheme Description

8.17 A description of the following will be provided:

i Site location and setting;

Southampton Scoping Statement v4.0 Page 52 September 2010

ii Existing site conditions; and iii Surrounding sensitive receptors.

8.18 The application will be submitted in outline with all matters of detail reserved for subsequent approval excepting the electrical generating capacity of the station and means of access. The application will be accompanied by an illustrative scheme layout and elevations designed to encompass a ‘worst case’ set of design and operating parameters for the purposes of environmental impact assessment. The scope of the application will be defined in further detail in the ES.

8.19 The ES will also include a description of the following:

i Sequencing and phasing of works; ii Methods of construction; iii Estimated programme of construction; iv Nature and quantity of materials to be used; v Outline of proposed working hours for both construction and operation; vi Approach to traffic management, including pedestrian and vehicular access to the site, protection of roadways and footpaths; vii Estimation of the volume and the number of vehicle movements and the routes to and from the site for both construction and operation; viii Monitoring and environmental management of works; ix Assessment of construction noise, vibration and ground disturbance effects on neighbouring buildings and nature conservation interests; x Control of air pollution, including dust creation, during development and operation; xi Construction waste management and recycling methods; xii Methods for dealing with contaminated soil and spoil arisings; xiii Site drainage and impact on water resources during construction; xiv Provision in respect of protecting the historic environment during construction; xv Protection of vegetation and other significant natural features during the construction period; and xvi All relevant authorisations, licences, permits and consents necessary to operate the plant.

Land Use

Scoping

8.20 The EIA will consider the extent to which the proposal accords with the relevant national, strategic and local planning policies, particularly in relation to the following issues:

Southampton Scoping Statement v4.0 Page 53 September 2010

i General planning principles and soundness; ii The appropriateness of the proposed uses; iii The development of brownfield land; iv Protection of the global and local environment; v Transport and accessibility; and vi Design.

Assessment Methodology

8.21 The assessment will be undertaken by consideration of the degree of compliance of the proposal with relevant land use policies.

Air Quality

Scoping

8.22 The impacts of the following pollutants will be investigated using dispersion modelling: sulphur

dioxide (SO2); oxides of nitrogen (NOx); small particulates (PM10); carbon monoxide (CO); and total VOC, dioxins and furans; hydrogen chloride (HCl); hydrogen fluoride (HF); cadmium and titanium (Cd+Ti); heavy metals (Sb+As+Pb+Cr+Co+Cu+Mn+Ni+V); and mercury (Hg), including the calculation of nitrogen and acid deposition rates. The frequency and length of visible plumes from the stack and cooling towers will also be assessed.

8.23 The impacts at the Millbrook Air Quality Management Area will be determined as well as Habitats Directive sites and other sites of statutory and non statutory nature conservation significance out to a

distance of 5km from the proposed facility. Ground level concentrations of NOx and SO2 plus

deposition fluxes of nitrogen (from NOx) and acid deposition (from NOx, SO2 and HCl) will be calculated.

Assessment Methodology

8.24 An industrial air dispersion model ADMS 4, version 4.2, will be used to calculate ground level concentrations and deposition fluxes, as appropriate to each emitted pollutant, resulting from emissions from the proposed facility. The newly operational 848MW CCGT Marchwood Power plant, located approximately 1 km south of the subject site, has been identified as potentially contributing to significant cumulative impacts on air quality which, due to the recent commencement of operation in December 2009, may not be reflected within the existing background air quality data. Emissions monitoring data from the Marchwood Power plant will therefore be sourced and included within a cumulative assessment of the potential air quality impacts of the proposed scheme. It is considered that other principal point sources of emissions in the locality will be captured in existing background air quality data and do not need to be modelled in association with the proposed plant.

Southampton Scoping Statement v4.0 Page 54 September 2010

8.25 Output will be generated on a high-resolution grid centred on the site, as well as at specific receptor points to represent the adjacent Air Quality Management Area and local Habitats Directive sites in the area. Site building effects will be included in the study as necessary. The model will be used to predict the incidence of visible plumes from the main stack and cooling towers.

8.26 Ground level concentrations of NOx/NO2, SO2, CO, PM10, VOC, dioxins and furans, HCl, HF, (Cd+Ti), (Sb+As+Pb+Cr+Co+Cu+Mn+Ni+V) and Hg will be calculated. In order to calculate

concentrations of NO2 for direct comparison against national air quality objectives, the Environment

Agency method of determining NO2 from modelling NOx concentrations will be used. Where available, background concentrations of the other pollutants under consideration will be obtained as annual average values, taken from the UK National Air Quality Information Archive web site.

8.27 Ground level concentrations of NO2 will be calculated at the locations of monitoring sites within the Millbrook Air Quality Management Area.

8.28 Ground level concentrations of NOx and SO2 plus deposition fluxes of nitrogen (from NOx) and acid

deposition (from NOx, SO2 and HCl) will be calculated for Habitats Directive sites and other statutory and non statutory sites of nature conservation significance. Deposition parameters have been discussed and agreed with the Environment Agency for previous studies as follows:

i For NO2: Dry deposition velocities of 0.0015m/s for short vegetation and 0.003m/s for forest;

ii For SO2: Dry deposition velocities of 0.012m/s for short vegetation and 0.024m/s for forest; iii For HCl: Dry deposition velocities of 0.025m/s for short vegetation and 0.06m/s for forest; and iv For HCl: Wet deposition washout coefficients A=0.0001 and B=0.64.

8.29 Wet deposition of NOx and SO2 will be assumed negligible, in line with Environment Agency guidance.

8.30 Meteorological data from the nearest Met Office site, Hurn Airport, with wind speed and direction data will be used in the study, measured during a recent five-year period 2005-2009. This has been confirmed by the Met Office as the nearest suitable site for meteorological data.

8.31 Results will be provided as tabulated values with some contoured results superimposed on Ordnance Survey (OS) digital base mapping to show how impacts vary over the surrounding area. Results will be calculated for direct comparison against Air Quality Objectives and Environmental Assessment Levels (EALs), as appropriate, for ground level concentrations of all pollutants,

objectives for the Protection of Vegetation and Ecosystems for SO2 and NOx at Habitat Directive

Southampton Scoping Statement v4.0 Page 55 September 2010

sites, and Critical Loads for nitrogen and acid deposition rates. Note that there are no air quality standards for VOC as a group.

Landscape and Visual Impact

Scoping

8.32 The landscape and visual impact assessment will comprise:

i A desk review of strategic and local planning policy guidance, including Regional Spatial Strategy, published landscape character assessments and other local and regional studies; ii A landscape assessment of the site and its wider context, including an analysis of landscape character and features; and iii A visibility assessment including identification of views from the wider study area, including residential properties, transport corridors, public rights of way and public open spaces, during day and night time. The views selected for the assessment will be agreed in consultation with Southampton City Council and New Forest District Council. The assessment will address both the effects of the built development, differentiating between the main buildings/ structures and stack. The effect of visible water vapour plumes from the main stack and cooling towers will also be considered as will visual impacts arising from changes to lighting on the site.

8.33 The assessment will also consider the effects resulting from associated external lighting and potential ‘spill over’ effects.

8.34 The study area for direct effects on landscape features will be limited to the footprint of the development and any associated infrastructure included in the ES. The initial search limit for the visual study area will be a radius of 15Km from the site. Within this, the Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) for landscape character and the visual appraisal will be generated using 3D terrain modelling. The ZTV is initially based on topography alone without factoring in intervening buildings or vegetation, giving a ‘worst case scenario’ for visibility of the proposed development. It is proposed to factor in tree cover in the terrain model due to the high level of tree cover in the region. The ZTV will then be tested and refined through field survey.

8.35 Visibility is likely to be confined mainly to the Test Valley slopes between the Solent and the M27 bridge. The slightly undulating topography beyond the valley affords occasional distant views to Southampton docks from higher ground. Views will also be considered from boats within the estuary such as cruise ships, ferries and pleasure craft.

Southampton Scoping Statement v4.0 Page 56 September 2010

8.36 The New Forest National Park lies approximately 2.6km to the west of the site. There is the possibility that part of the proposed development may be visible from a few areas within the National Park, although rising ground on the west bank of the Test and high tree cover significantly constrain views. The upper portion of the stack may, however, be visible from a few of the higher, open heath land areas within the park and work will be undertaken to determine whether or not this is the case.

Assessment Methodology

8.37 The landscape and visual impact assessment will have regard to the guidance set out in the IEMA Guidelines for landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (2002).

8.38 For each landscape and visual receptor, the impacts are predicted using industry standard matrices which compare the relationship between a receptor’s sensitivity to change and the predicted magnitude of change.

8.39 Receptor Sensitivity: The sensitivity of the landscape depends upon an evaluation of each key element or characteristic of the landscape likely to be affected by the proposed development, considering factors such as quality, value and contribution to landscape character, its ability to accommodate change and the degree to which elements or characteristics can be replaced or substituted (LI and IEMA, 2002). The sensitivity of viewers is dependent on the location and context of the viewpoint and viewing opportunities, the occupation/past time of the receptor and the importance and expectation of the view.

8.40 Magnitude of change: The effects of the proposals will be quantified by identifying the magnitude of change predicted for the different viewpoints and landscape character areas described in the landscape and visual baseline. 8.41 The magnitude of visual impact will be defined by the degree to which specific views would change with the development, and the type of viewer. The magnitude of landscape impact includes consideration of the scale and nature of features either removed or introduced; the extent of loss of vegetation and other natural features; and the degree to which landscape character may be altered.

8.42 Significance of Impacts: The significance of an impact on a visual or landscape receptor is a function of the magnitude of the change and the sensitivity of the receptor,. A slight change in a highly sensitive view may be more significant than a moderate change to a lower sensitivity view.

8.43 Impacts can be adverse or beneficial. ‘No Significant Impact’ is used where there is no impact whatsoever, or where the overall impact of a direct or indirect change is barely perceptible. Where it is not possible to accurately predict an impact, or where the magnitude of the impact would differ at different times of year, the assessment assumes a worst case scenario. After mitigation is taken into account, the assessment identifies the significance of the residual impact.

Southampton Scoping Statement v4.0 Page 57 September 2010

8.44 Once the nature of the impact and its significance has been established, any necessary mitigation measures are designed and the impact reassessed with such measures in place. This gives the Residual impact for each receptor. These residual impacts can then be summarised in a table at the end of the ES chapter.

Ecology

Scoping

8.45 The proposed scope of the ecological assessment has been defined to date by desk study. It will be further informed by an Extended Phase 1 habitat survey of the application site and ongoing modelling work to determine the likely Zone of Influence (ZOI) of the project in terms of the spatial extent of environmental changes likely to be generated by the project. A request will also be made to the local biological records centre for records of protected or notable habitats or species or non- statutory designated sites within the presumed ZOI.

8.46 Once the likely ZOI of the project has been established through any necessary predictive modelling, this will define the boundary of the assessment area within which potential features of ecological value will be assessed for their potential to become impact receptors.

8.47 Potential biophysical changes that could be caused by the project during the site clearance, construction, operational and decommissioning phases of the development that might lead to ecological impacts beyond the site boundary (and consequently define the ZOI of the project) are considered to be:

i Accidental liberation during groundworks of any residual soil or ground contamination on site from previous site uses, and mobilisation of such substance in surface or groundwater and transport to the estuary (this is most likely to occur during the construction phase); ii Emissions to air of pollutants from the stack (both intentional and rogue releases); iii The intake of water for use in the cooling towers from the River Test estuary; iv The discharge of heated water from the cooling towers into the River Test estuary; v Rogue or unintended discharges of pollutants into the River test estuary during the operation of the biomass plant; or vi Accidental spillages of polluting substances on site during any phase of the development lifespan.

8.48 Other circumstances that may arise during the assessment process have the potential to warrant the extension of the ZOI of the project beyond the application site boundary, for example any effects caused to bird flyways that may affect bird populations supported off site.

Southampton Scoping Statement v4.0 Page 58 September 2010

8.49 Modelling work will be undertaken by subject specialists to establish the likely spatial extent of the above mentioned potential impacts. The modelling will include in particular the following specific exercises:

i Air dispersion modelling to establish the likely impact of emissions to air from the stack, including the pollutants specified above under ‘Air Quality’. This will include the calculation of ground level concentrations of modelled pollutants and the rates of acid and nitrogen deposition to ground; and ii Hydrological modelling to predict the likely spatial dispersion of heated water discharged into the River Test.

8.50 Following completion of the above mentioned modelling work to establish the likely ZOI of the project, the ecological assessment. will comprise a consideration of potential impacts upon features of biodiversity value within the ZOI, including on:

i The habitats and plant communities of the site that are likely to be directly affected by the proposals, and other terrestrial areas within the ZOI; ii Any faunal species within the site itself or wider ZOI that is of conservation importance, including those that are protected, notable, rare or those of principal importance for the conservation of biodiversity listed under Section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act, 2006. iii The features for which any International level nature conservation sites within the ZOI were designated for, including the environmental conditions that are required to support them; and iv Species and communities present that are qualifying features on other nationally and locally designated sites such as SSSIs, LNRs and Sites of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCIs). This includes indirect effects caused by biophysical changes to the environmental conditions required to support site interest features).

8.51 Potential impacts to be covered will include those resulting from:

i Direct loss of habitats and plant communities under the development footprint; ii Indirect loss of or changes in habitats and plant communities resulting from biophysical or chemical changes to soil reaction, soil structure, hydrology, etc; iii Disturbance resulting from increased site usage, lighting, noise or traffic/plant movements both by day and night; iv Effects on aquatic habitats and species, for example mudflats, benthic invertebrates and fish, resulting from changes in water quality, flow rates or temperature; and

v Effects of emissions to air, including ground level concentrations of NOx and SO2 and acid and nitrogen deposition to land.

Southampton Scoping Statement v4.0 Page 59 September 2010

8.52 The methods for data collection and impact assessment that are described below will provide the information that is required to enable the significance of effects to be determined for the construction, operational and decommissioning phases of the proposed development. Consideration will also be given to opportunities for environmental improvement as a consequence of the development of the scheme.

Collation of Information

Desk study

8.53 Details from the SPA and SAC Natura 2000 data sheets, Ramsar information sheets and SSSI citations, including species designations, and with reference to the conservation objectives of each site, will be reviewed, together with research reports or SSSI condition assessments describing changes to baseline conditions in designated sites since their designation. Data from the latest available published Wetland Birds Survey (WeBS) report that is relevant to the application site will be extracted to provide contextual information. Relevant records from the local Environmental Records Centre will also be examined. Relevant planning policy and statutory legislation will be identified and reviewed.

8.54 Relevant records from the local environmental/biological records centre will also be examined for records of protected or otherwise notable habitats or species within the ZOI. Relevant planning policy and statutory legislation will be identified and reviewed.

8.55 Southampton City Council will be contacted for data pertaining to their recent study of bird flight paths in the Southampton area.

8.56 Should air pollution or hydrological investigations reveal potential effects on sites that are designated for nature conservation, then further investigations will be carried out, up to the distance and spatial extent of the potential effect.

Field Survey

8.57 An extended Phase 1 survey of the site will be carried out to map habitats and vegetation types on site and identify their potential to support protected or notable species, or species of conservation importance. Phase 1 habitat survey method was developed by the Nature Conservancy Council (now Joint Nature Conservation Committee) to provide, relatively rapidly, a record of the semi- natural vegetation and wildlife habitat over large areas of the countryside. Habitats are mapped using standard colour codes with further information provided by means of dominant species codes and descriptive target notes.

Southampton Scoping Statement v4.0 Page 60 September 2010

8.58 The need for any additional field survey will be informed by the results of the extended Phase 1 survey of the site itself, and the potential for features of biodiversity value to be affected by the proposals following completion of ongoing modelling work.

8.59 If necessary, further field investigations will accord with any relevant published guidance endorsed by Natural England or other conservation authorities.

Habitats Regulations Assessment Report

8.60 In view of the proximity of the proposals to a number of International level designated nature conservation sites (SPAs, SACs, and Ramsars), the potential for the proposed development to affect the interest features of the designated site(s), and the environmental conditions required to support them, will be investigated.

8.61 Information gathered from the Desk Study and field survey will be used to compile a Habitats Regulations Assessment Report which will inform the Competent Authority (The IPC) when applying the tests set out in the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010.

8.62 The Habitats Regulations Assessment Report will provide sufficient information to enable the Competent Authority to determine whether the proposed development is likely to have a significant effect on any European or Ramsar site, either alone or in combination with other plans and projects, and also enable the carrying out of an appropriate assessment if necessary. It will be identified separately to the main body of the ES and will set out any likely significant effects on internationally designated sites.

8.63 The Habitats Regulations Assessment Report will be structured by reference to the tests applied under Regulation 61 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 and associated Regulations if necessary. Reference will also be made to relevant European Guidance for Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA), such as ‘’Assessment of Plans and Projects Significantly Affecting Natura 2000 Sites’’ (EC, 2001) and ‘’Managing Natura 2000 Sites’’ (EC, 2000).

Assessment Method

8.64 An Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) will be required. To determine the significance of any effects of the proposed development, it is necessary to define a robust assessment methodology which will be undertaken with reference to the Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (IEEM) Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK (IEEM, 2006). The key components of the IEEM method comprise the following steps:

i Establishing the likely Zone of Influence (ZOI) of a Project; ii Identifying and evaluating ecological features within the ZOI;

Southampton Scoping Statement v4.0 Page 61 September 2010

iii Characterising and quantifying impacts (during site clearance, construction, operation and decommissioning phases) and assessing their significance in the absence of impact avoidance or mitigation measures; iv Consideration of the potential for cumulative or interactive effects (with other existing and/or proposed developments (registered or consented in planning terms) in the study area; v Avoiding or minimising negative impacts and maximising positive outcomes through the project design process and development of mitigation measures to avoid, reduce and compensate (and enhance) for impacts on ecology (if appropriate); and vi Assessing the significance of any residual impacts on ecological receptors after mitigation has been applied.

8.65 Resource Value: Habitats and species identified within the study areas will be assigned ecological values on a scale between international and within the immediate zone of influence only in accordance with IEEM (2006).

8.66 Significance Criteria: All potential impacts to each valued ecological receptor identified during the evaluation will be identified in relation to activities during site clearance, construction and operation. Each potential impact will then be described using the following criteria:

i Positive or negative: whether the impact benefits or detracts from the net biodiversity value of the feature; ii Magnitude: the ‘size’ or ‘amount’ of an impact determined on a quantitative basis if possible e.g. quantum of habitat to be lost; iii Extent: the physical extent of the impact i.e. number of individuals affected, or area of habitat lost (may be synonymous with magnitude); iv Duration: Measured time interval for the activity and likely duration of impact upon the receptor. The following categories have been used: temporary, short-term, medium- term, long-term, permanent – in relation to ecological characteristics e.g. species lifecycles rather than human timeframes; v Reversibility: whether reversible or not; and vi Timing/Frequency: whether constant or intermittent (the interval and variation in level of activity should be stated if possible). Some changes may only cause an impact it they coincide with critical life stages or seasons.

8.67 The IEEM Guidelines advise that in order to characterise the likely change and impact, it is necessary to take into account all the above parameters. An ecologically significant impact is defined according to IEEM (2006) as an impact (negative or positive) on the integrity of a defined site or ecosystem and/or the conservation status of habitats or species within a given geographical area.

Southampton Scoping Statement v4.0 Page 62 September 2010

8.68 The value of any feature that will be significantly affected is then used to identify the geographical scale at which the impact is significant. A confidence level is assigned to the occurrence of the effect and significance of the impact on the following scale:

i Certain/near-Certain: probability estimated at 95% chance or higher; ii Probable: probability estimated above 50% but below 95%; iii Unlikely: probability estimated above 5% but less than 50%; and iv Extremely Unlikely: probability estimated at less than 5%.

Historic Environment

Scoping

8.69 An historic environment baseline study of the application area would be undertaken and included as a technical appendix to the ES.

8.70 The assessment will be undertaken with references to the following information sources: i The Hampshire County Record Office (HRO); ii National Monuments Record (NMR), Swindon; iii Southampton Historic Environment Record (SHER); iv Southampton Museum and; v Internet sites (e.g. Images of England [IoE]).

8.71 The following legislation and guidelines will inform the assessment: i Protection of Wrecks Act (1973); ii Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act (1979); iii Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations (1988); iv Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act (1990); v Town and Country Planning Act (1990) vi Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment (2010); vii Standard and Guidance for Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment. Institute of Field Archaeologists; originally published in 1994; revised 2008; viii Standard and Guidance for Archaeological Field Evaluation. Institute of Field Archaeologists; originally published in 1994; revised 2008; ix Standard and Guidance for an Archaeological Watching Brief. Institute of Field Archaeologists; originally published in 1994; revised 2008; x Standard and Guidance for Archaeological Excavation. Institute of Field Archaeologists. Originally published in 1995; revised 2008;

Southampton Scoping Statement v4.0 Page 63 September 2010

Assessment Methodology

8.72 To determine the significance of any effects of the proposed development, the criteria set out in Table 8.72 will be used. Sites or monuments considered to be of national importance can be designated as scheduled monuments (SMs). There are no scheduled monuments sufficiently close to the site such that they or their settings will be affected although the Grade II Listed George V Dock and No 7 Pumping Station may be affected by one of the cooling water options. Apart from statutory designation there are no nationally agreed criteria for assessing archaeological sites at regional and local level. Individual archaeological resources and their component features will be evaluated using professional judgement based on comparison with similar sites within the region and local area, their rarity and importance.

Table 8.72 Historic Environment Resource Evaluation Criteria Significance of Selection Criteria Resource High (National) A nationally designated asset (e.g. scheduled monument, grade I or II* listed building) or previously unrecognised asset of outstanding significance which has not been designated Medium A heritage asset of significant interest (e.g. Conservation Area or Grade II listed building. Low A heritage asset of some significance Negligible No significant heritage value.

8.73 The potential impact of the proposed development upon these resources will be assessed using the following criteria set out in Table 8.73.

Table 8.73 Magnitude of Archaeological Impacts Magnitude of Description Impact Severe Total removal of or impairment to the asset Moderate Partial removal of or impairment to the asset; total removal of or impairment to some of the asset Slight Partial removal of or impairment to some of the asset Negligible No impact on the asset

8.74 Initial informal consultation with Southampton City Council highlighted the potential for buried archaeological interest.

8.75 A desk study will be undertaken to assess the archaeological potential of the study area using selected locally available documentary sources, with reference to the Southampton Historic

Southampton Scoping Statement v4.0 Page 64 September 2010

Environment Record (SHER). The archaeological potential will be confined to buried environments of the study area.

8.76 In addition to the desk top study, arrangements will be made to monitor and examine the trial holes and core samples from geo-technical investigations that will be undertaken as part of preliminary site investigations forming part of the environmental impact assessment. The results of the desk top study and the analysis of geotechnical monitoring will help inform the nature of the more detailed intrusive archaeological investigations to be undertaken and agreed with Southampton City Council prior to commencement of the development. Post consent, once the detailed design of the scheme is finalised, a detailed scheme of archaeological investigation of the site will be prepared which will relate to those parts of the site that might be affected by the proposed construction works. It is anticipated that such further works will include additional geo-archaeological boreholes and trial trenching specifically designed to address the piling requirements of the development. This approach would also allow any intrusive archaeological investigations to be coordinated with any necessary remediation works on the site to minimise the potential disturbance of any archaeological assets encountered.

8.77 It is considered that extensive intrusive investigations are unwarranted at this stage of the development and would be more appropriate once the detailed designed of the scheme is finalised, following the approach outlined above. Works undertaken prior to the detailed design of the scheme being finalised would be based on a speculative layout of the proposed development and would therefore prove ineffective as the works would fail to provide insight into the buried environment for more than a small percentage of the site which would not necessarily include the area which will be affected by the final design. It is therefore highly likely that a second scheme of intrusive works would be required prior to the commencement of the development. Consequently, it is considered that such an approach would increase the potential risk of unnecessary disturbance or damage of the buried environment. In addition it should be noted that due to the depth of any potential archaeological levels, such investigations would involve extensive works and considerable disruption to the current use of the site by the Port.

Geo-Environmental/ Geo-Technical

Scoping

8.78 A Phase 1 Desk Study has been undertaken to identify the environmental, geological, hydrogeological and hydrological conditions present at the site, and together with knowledge of the historic land use, develop an understanding of any potential geo-environmental and geotechnical risks that might arise from the proposed re-development of the site. The Phase 1 Desk Study will be included as a technical appendix to the ES.

8.79 The Desk Study recommends a Phase 2 Intrusive Investigation and subsequent quantitative risk assessment to identify the potential presence of significant negative impacts associated with the Southampton Scoping Statement v4.0 Page 65 September 2010

proposed development. The purpose of the Phase 2 Investigations will be to ascertain the extent and nature of any potential contamination within soils and groundwater (if encountered), and to establish the geotechnical properties of the ground for preliminary design purposes.

Assessment Methodology

8.80 As part of the Phase 1 Desk Study, the following methods were applied:

i Walkover survey of the site to assess the current condition and identify and visible signs of contamination such as staining on the ground surface and plant die back; ii Review of readily available published geological maps and memoirs, where available, and groundwater vulnerability maps; iii Review of the readily available historical information such as historical Ordnance Survey maps, with respect to potentially contaminative land uses and geotechnical hazards; iv Review of information on groundwater and surface water quality, details of licensed abstraction wells and records of pollution incidents from the archives of the Environment Agency; v Review of available BGS borehole logs within the area of the site; vi Consultation with Southampton City Council Building Control and Environment Health Departments and the Local Petroleum Officer to obtain any relevant information in relation to potential geo-environmental and geotechnical hazards at the site; vii Identification of potentially sensitive receptors in relation to the proposed development; viii Qualitative assessment of the potential geo-environmental risks associated with the proposed development; ix Formulation of a preliminary conceptual site model to identify any pollutant linkages that may be present in relation to the proposed development; x Preliminary assessment of the geotechnical suitability of the site for the proposed development; and xi Recommendation of any Phase 2 Intrusive Investigation works deemed necessary by the outcomes of the geo-environmental qualitative risk assessment/preliminary geotechnical assessment to investigate any identified areas of potential concern.

Geo-Environmental Qualitative Risk Assessment

8.81 As part of the Phase 1 desk Study, an initial conceptual model and risk assessment was undertaken to provide a preliminary identification of the risks to the site, site users and the surrounding area posed by any contamination present on site. The assessment was based on identification of “pollution linkages”, i.e. source-pathway-receptor relationships. This approach accords with the guidance that accompanies Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act of 1990 where land is Southampton Scoping Statement v4.0 Page 66 September 2010

considered to be contaminated when “significant harm” is occurring, or where there is the “significant possibility of significant harm” or where pollution of controlled waters is being, or is likely to be caused. In such cases, the pollution linkage itself is defined as being “significant”.

8.82 The source and pathway to receptors must be present for there to be a risk. The preliminary risk assessment assesses the strength of the link between the source, the pathway and the receptor taking into consideration the proposed development. An assessment was made of the probability and consequence of the selected sources and receptors being linked by the identified pathways. Based on the assessed probability and consequence, an overall risk classification was then assigned to each potential pollutant linkage.

Intrusive Ground Investigations and Quantitative Risk Assessments

8.83 The Phase 1 Desk Study has identified that a Phase 2 Intrusive Investigation and subsequent quantitative risk assessments are required. These investigations will be conducted in accordance with UK regulatory guidance and current best practice.

8.84 The intrusive investigation will comprise: excavation of trial pits to gain a visual impression of the ground conditions underlying the site and collect soil samples for contamination testing; drilling of boreholes to allow in-situ geotechnical testing and to gain an understanding of the deeper ground conditions underlying the site; installation of gas and groundwater monitoring wells to allow post fieldwork ground gas monitoring and groundwater sampling; collection of soil and groundwater samples with subsequent laboratory analysis for both geo-environmental and geotechnical purposes.

8.85 The programme of site investigation will have regard to the following guidance:

i CLR 4 ‘Sampling strategies for contaminated land’. Report by The Centre for Research into the Built Environment, the Nottingham Trent University, DoE, 1994; ii British Standards Institute: BS 10175 ‘Code of practice for the investigation of potentially contaminated sites’, BSI 2001; iii British Standards Institute: BS 5930 ‘Code of practice for site investigations’, BSi 1999; and iv CLR11, ‘Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination’, Defra and Environment Agency, 2004.

8.86 Using the results of the intrusive investigations and laboratory testing, quantitative human health, ground gas and controlled waters risk assessments will be undertaken.

8.87 The quantitative risk assessments will have regard to the following guidance:

Southampton Scoping Statement v4.0 Page 67 September 2010

i CLR11, ‘Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination’. Defra and Environment Agency, 2004; ii CIRIA C665, ‘Assessing Risks Posed by Hazardous Ground Gases to Buildings’, 2006; iii BS8485, ‘Code of Practice for the Characterization and Remediation from Ground Gas in Affected Developments’, 2007; iv Water Regulations Advisory Scheme: Guidance Note, ‘The Selection of Materials for Water Supply Pipes to be Laid in Contaminated Land’, October 2002; v CL:AIRE and CIEH: ‘Guidance on Comparing Soil Contamination Data with a Critical Concentration’, 2008; vi Nathanail, C.P., McCaffrey, C., Ashmore, M.H., Cheng, Y.Y., Gillet, A.,Ogden, R. & Scott, D: ‘The LQM/CIEH Generic Assessment Criteria for Human Health Risk Assessment (2nd Edition)’, 2009; and vii EIC/AGS/CL:AIRE: ‘The EIC/AGS/CL:AIRE Soil Generic Assessment Criteria for Human Health Risk Assessment’, 2009.

8.88 If the quantitative risk assessments identify any significant negative impacts relating to the proposed re-development of the site, recommendations for suitable mitigation measures will be provided.

Flooding and Site Drainage

Scoping

8.89 The key issues to be addressed in the EIA are:

i Flood risk to the proposed electricity generating station; ii Changes in flood risk to the surrounding area due to the proposed electricity generating station; iii Contamination of surface water; iv Contamination of groundwater and v Increases in water temperature in the River Test and/or other local watercourses as a result of cooling water discharge

Assessment Methodology

8.90 The proposed development contains areas that are subject to flooding. A ‘Sequential Test’ and an ‘Exception Test’ will be undertaken in accordance with Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25 and Environment Agency guidelines to demonstrate the site is appropriate for the scheme of this nature.

8.91 A Flood Risk Assessment of the proposed development on the subject site will be undertaken in accordance with PPS25. The objectives of the flood risk assessment will be to establish: Southampton Scoping Statement v4.0 Page 68 September 2010

i The impacts of flooding on the development; ii The impacts of the development on flood risk elsewhere; and iii Whether appropriate mitigation measures can be incorporated into the design of the development to minimise risks to people and property on the site and elsewhere.

8.92 PPS25 requires the flood risk from fluvial, pluvial, tidal, groundwater, sewers and artificial sources to be considered. The Flood Risk Assessment for this site will include an assessment of each of these sources with particular emphasis on the flood risk arising from the following sources:

i Fluvial – Rivers Test, River Itchen, Blighmont Crescent Stream and any other local watercourses; ii Tidal – Southampton Water; iii Pluvial – overland flows from surrounding areas; and iv Groundwater

8.93 The Environment Agency will be consulted regarding the scope and content of the Flood Risk Assessment and to obtain information relating to the flood risk potentially affecting the site or affected by the proposed development. This will include information in relation to the:

i Flood levels resulting from fluvial flooding and extreme tide events; ii Nature, extent and performance standard of the existing flood defences; iii Existing land drainage provision; iv Performance of existing drainage systems; and v Existing drainage outfalls and maximum permitted discharge rates.

8.94 This information will be used to form the current baseline assessment.

8.95 Appropriate allowances in the assessment of the flood risk to the site and the design of the surface water drainage system will be made in accordance with the current recommendations from the UK Climate Impacts Programme (UKCIP09) for the anticipated effects of climate change. The Environment Agency will be consulted regarding the implications of the UKCIP on the future baseline of the development. The proposed electricity generating station will be assumed to have a life span of up to 73-years hence the effect of climate change must be considered up to the 2085 to 2115 period. Therefore, according to PPS25, the future baseline assessment will be based on the following percentage increases due to climate change:

i Peak rainfall intensity +30% ii Peak river flow +20% iii Extreme wave height +10%

Southampton Scoping Statement v4.0 Page 69 September 2010

8.96 A foul water drainage analysis will also be prepared detailing how the site will be drained. This report will be submitted for approval in principle to the sewerage undertaker, Southern Water.

8.97 The options for the sourcing and disposal of process water required for the plant will be described and their impacts assessed.

8.98 Proposals for the drainage of surface water from the site will be described including proposed maximum discharge rates and the water quality impact on receiving watercourses.

Highways and Movement

Scoping

8.99 The transport chapter of the ES will consider the effect of all modes of transport both within the site and also on the broader network. Such assessment will address transport policy issues both in the context of the local policy and also relating to strategic policy. The assessment will include evaluation of the impact of construction and operational phases of the development, incorporating an assessment of the volume of construction related traffic at each phase of construction. Subject to the level of assessment required, a Transport Assessment (TA) or Transport Statement (TS) and Travel Plan (TP) will also be completed for the site. The TP shall include measures where appropriate to encourage staff and visitors to travel using modes other than the private car, particularly single occupancy car travel.

Assessment Methodology

8.100 The transport chapter of the ES and the TA or TS will be undertaken in accordance with the EIA Regulations and follow the methodology and guidelines set out in the Institute of Environmental Assessment’s Guidance Note 1, “Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic”, “Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB)” and the ‘Guidance on Transport Assessment’ (GTA) published by the Department for Transport in March 2007. These documents will consider severance, driver delay, pedestrian/cyclist amenity together with accidents and safety.

8.101 Consultation has been undertaken with both Southampton City Council and the Highways Agency in order to inform this scoping assessment. The information contained in this document is therefore guided by discussion with Southampton City Council at a meeting on the 18th August 2010 and with the Highways Agency in a telephone conversation of the 2nd August 2010.

Site Context

8.102 Traffic flows for the area surrounding the site will be determined through existing count data, these shall have growth rates applied to determine likely traffic levels for future year scenarios.

Southampton Scoping Statement v4.0 Page 70 September 2010

8.103 In relation to travel by modes other than the car, further data will be collated relating to the existing service provision for bus and train travel to assess the baseline conditions. In addition, journey to work data for the locality will be considered in order to determine both expected modal split for staff at the site. Parking provision, for both cars and bicycles, will be considered in line with the requirements of the site and policy guideline.

8.104 Accident data for the vicinity of the site shall be obtained and reviewed to consider the potential impact of road safety posed by the development proposals. It is anticipated that due to the limited number of proposed development trips, and the likely routing for HGV traffic i.e. on roads designed to accommodate HGV traffic, that there will be a limited impact on road safety.

Trip Attraction / Impact

8.105 As agreed with Southampton City Council, assessment of impact upon the local highway will be determined through assessment of the Millbrook Roundabout with traffic data (29th March 2007) based on that contained in the Transport Statement prepared to support a planning application by the City Council for a City Depot. Further explanation on this is set down in an email dated 19th August 2010 to Southampton City Council, a copy of which is supplied at Appendix C. On the basis of a 2019 assessment year, as defined within the depot Transport Statement ,the proportional impact of the biomass plant development traffic is defined as follows (for consistency with the data in the depot Transport Statement the assessment of the Millbrook Roundabout is based on Passenger Car Units (PCUs):

2019 Assessment Year AM peak: i Total PCU’s at Millbrook Roundabout (without depot trips) = 4444 ii Predicted Biomass Plant PCU (allowing for 16 staff arrivals by car and 10 HGVs arriving and departing in the same hour) = 62 PCUs (assumes 1 HGV = 2.3 PCUs) iii Worst case percentage increase at Millbrook Roundabout = 1.3%

8.106 A similar assessment has been completed for the Strategic Road Network (SRN) based on all HGV traffic utilising the M271 SRN. For the purpose of this assessment it is envisaged that all staff will utilise the local network although this will be confirmed within the planning application documentation. In order to maintain consistency with the local network only the AM peak is assessed. For the purpose of this scoping assessment we have applied the 2019 growth rates, agreed with Southampton City Council, to the M271 traffic flows to provide an indication of the impact of development traffic, this is defined as follows:

M271 South of Junction 1 (Northbound): i AM Peak (08:00-09:00) 2007 TRADs data (29th March 2007) = 1,853 ii Growth Rate 2007 – 2019 = 1.127

Southampton Scoping Statement v4.0 Page 71 September 2010

iii AM Peak (08:00-09:00) 2019 TRADs data = 2,088 iv Hourly HGV trips – 10 departures v AM Peak Proportional Impact in 2019 = 0.47%

M271 South of Junction 1 (Southbound): i AM Peak (08:00-09:00) 2007 TRADs data (29th March 2007) = 2,460 ii Growth Rate 2007 – 2019 = 1.127 iii AM Peak (08:00-09:00) 2019 TRADs data = 2,772 iv Hourly HGV trips – 10 arrivals v AM Peak Proportional Impact in 2019 = 0.36%

It is not anticipated that junction assessments will be required to support this application as the provisional worst case calculations above have shown there to be only a negligible number of trips in any one hour related to this development. As such it is anticipated that this assessment will define the proportional impact of development traffic at the Millbrook Roundabout and the M271.

Mitigation and Enhancement

8.107 A Travel Plan (TP) shall be developed with the aim of reducing the number of staff and visitors choosing to access the site by private car. This document shall propose measures based on the modal split identified through, for example, use of the census data for journeys to work. The TP shall incorporate existing sustainable infrastructure and where possible shall link into other Travel Plans in the vicinity of the site. The TP will include a programme for ongoing monitoring and review with the potential to incorporate further measures where appropriate.

Noise and Vibration

Scoping

8.108 The following effects of the proposal have been identified as key issues for inclusion in the EIA:

i Effects from construction noise and vibration on neighbouring development; and ii Effects from operational noise on neighbouring development.

8.109 The assessment will assume that the existing industrial areas continue to operate in the future as they do now and, as a result, there will be no net change in noise impact.

8.110 Baseline surveys will be undertaken at noise sensitive receptors near to the proposed site in order to

determine the prevailing noise climate in terms of the background (LA90) and ambient (LAeqT) noise levels. The location of the baseline measuring locations will be agreed in consultation with

Southampton Scoping Statement v4.0 Page 72 September 2010

Southampton City Council. Noise levels vary temporally and for this reason the surveys will be carried out on a continuous basis over a minimum 5 day period which will include a weekend.

8.111 Source noise levels from construction and operational plant/ machinery will be obtained from relevant manufacturers, from our own databases/ experience of other projects and that contained within BS 5228 (and the updated Defra construction plant noise database)

Assessment Methodology

8.112 The baseline noise surveys will utilise sound level meters that comply with the Type One accuracy standard of BS EN 61672-1:2003. All measurements will be undertaken by a consultant fully competent in environmental noise monitoring, in accordance with the principles of BS7445: Parts 1- 3, Description and Measurement of Environmental Noise (1991).

8.113 Predictions for construction noise and vibration will be undertaken in accordance with BS 5228: 1997 ‘Noise and Vibration on Construction Sites’. Objective criteria for assessment will be taken from publications including the Department of the Environment leaflet (AL) 72 ‘Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and Open Sites’ and, in the absence of precisely defined data, on the subject, by reference to the guidance used elsewhere in similar projects.

8.114 The effect of construction vibration on adjacent industrial and residential occupiers will be assessed in accordance with to the guidance in BS6472: Evaluation of Human Exposure to Vibration on buildings and BS7385: Part 2 1993: Evaluation and Measurement of vibration in Buildings.

8.115 A noise model of the site operation will be developed which will predict the noise level from the operation at the nearest noise-sensitive receptors. The calculations will be undertaken using the noise propagation model defined in ISO 9613 ‘Attenuation of Sound During Propagation Outdoors’ The assessment of operational noise impact will be undertaken relative to the background noise level in accordance with the rating methodology of BS4142 ‘Method for Rating Industrial Noise Sources affecting Mixed Residential/Industrial Areas’.

Socio-Economics

Scoping

8.116 The assessment will consider the labour demands of the project, both during the construction and operational phases and the potential for the local labour pool to satisfy those requirements. An assessment will be made of both direct employment associated with the scheme and likely indirect employment generation. The implications of the employment provided on the site for the economic and social well being of the area will be assessed.

Southampton Scoping Statement v4.0 Page 73 September 2010

Assessment Methodology

8.117 Comparison of the effects of the development upon employment opportunities in the locality will be compared with appropriate equivalent regional, national and local averages.

Other Environmental Issues

Scoping – Impact on Southampton Airport

8.118 The aviation assessment will determine what, if any, adverse effects the project would have on the operations at Southampton Airport and will identify any possible measures which might be taken in mitigation. The assessment will involve both technical and operational analysis. The technical analysis will determine whether the project would result in a penetration of the Obstacle Limitation Surfaces surrounding the Airport and include a radar line of sight study between the chimney stack and Southampton Airport Primary Surveillance Radar. The operational assessment would involve a review of the Airport Instrument Flight Procedures for potential safeguarding conflicts.

Scoping- Connection to the Electricity Grid

8.119 The ES will set out the proposals to connect the electricity generating station to the local grid.

8.120 A Grid Connection Feasibility Study has been undertaken and Helius Energy is in advanced discussions with Scottish and Southern Electricity regarding the application for a grid connection.

8.121 It is anticipated that connection to the local grid will be made via the existing overhead 132kV line that runs along the northern boundary of the site. It is anticipated that the connection will be made at either Tower SM8 located approximately 353m east of the site or Tower SM9 located approximately 80 metres northwest of the site at grid reference SU 394 127 via underground cables.

8.122 In order to comply with the EIA Regulations which require the inclusion of indirect, secondary and cumulative effects, the assessment will outline any potential environmental issues that are likely to arise through the proposed connection of the generating station to the local grid. This assessment will include consideration of the potential electro-magnetic effects on human health from the substation on site and the connection to the local electricity grid.

Scoping- Carbon Emissions savings

8.123 The assessment will assess the potential carbon emissions savings that would result from the operation of the project, compared to fossil fuel alternatives to generating electricity.

Southampton Scoping Statement v4.0 Page 74 September 2010

Scoping- Local Heat users

8.124 An assessment will be undertaken by specialists in distributed heat and will consider the potential to supply heat or steam on a commercial basis to users in the vicinity of the site, with reference to the DTIs ‘Guidance of background information to accompany notifications under Section 14 (1) of the Energy Act 1976 and application sunder Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989’ (2006) and the emerging requirements of the draft Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy EN-1 (2009).

8.125 Helius Energy will engage with the Local and Regional planning authorities and Regional Development Agencies to identify any opportunities for CHP within emerging spatial planning policies or those identified through the planning authorities own investigations. Helius Energy will give consideration to DECC’s CHP Focus website and the guidance it contains, including the new UK Heat Map as well as consulting with other bodies such as CHPQA programme administrator, Combined Heat and Power Association, The Energy Saving Trust and The Carbon Trust, where appropriate as well the Homes and Communities Agency.

8.126 The ES will set out all investigations undertaken, prior to the submission of the application, to identify potential users of heat or steam and their requirements. The assessment will detail any potential users’ heat or steam requirements.

8.127 The assessment will also propose the approach to continued investigations for future heat or steam users as the project progresses should no potential users be identified.

Scoping- Fire Risk

8.128 The assessment will assess the potential fire risk generated by the proposed scheme, with reference to the building design and fuel storage.

Environmental Monitoring

Scoping

8.129 The assessment will consider the need for further studies and monitoring of key aspects of the project together with reporting procedures. These monitoring requirements will take the form of recommendations and would be encompassed within conditions attached to the consent.

Southampton Scoping Statement v4.0 Page 75 September 2010

9.0 NON SIGNIFICANT ISSUES

9.1 To date a number of environmental effects have been determined to be ‘non-significant’ for the purposes of the environmental impact assessment as set out in this section.

Air Quality – Vehicle Emissions

9.2 The number of traffic movements that will be generated by the proposed development under construction and operational conditions is low. Furthermore, the proposed main access route to and from the site links with the free-flowing strategic road network at a very short distance from Dock Gate 20. For these reasons the examination of vehicle emissions, including dust, on air quality has been ‘scoped out’.

Air Quality – Odours

9.3 There will be no malodorous materials stored on site. There will be no open storage of materials on site as all storage will be enclosed under negative pressure. The high temperatures of the combustion process will neutralise any odours arising from the combustion of biomass material. There are no receptors that would be sensitive to odours in the vicinity of the site. For these reasons the examination of the potential for odours has been ‘scoped out’.

Vehicle Noise

9.4 The number of traffic movements that are likely to be generated by the proposed development under construction and operational conditions are not anticipated to have a significant impact upon the operation of the local and strategic road network. Furthermore, the proposed main access route to and from the site connects with the established port freight routes of the A3024 / A35 and beyond to the SRN a very short distance from Dock Gate 20. For these reasons the examination of noise arising from vehicle movements at construction and operational stages has been ‘scoped out’.

Daylight, Sunlight and Shadowing

9.5 The effects of the development upon daylight, sunlight and shadow would normally be considered having regard to the methods set out in the Building Research Establishment (BRE) report “Site Layout Planning for Daylight & Sunlight 1991”. As stated in the BRE report, the “guidelines may be used for houses and any non domestic buildings, where daylight is required”.

9.6 The proposed layout sites the boiler house and stack, the tallest buildings within the plant, at the southern extent of the site. The nearest residential properties to the site are located approximately 125 metres from the northern boundary of the subject site. The intervening area includes a multi- track railway line and a 3 lane dual carriageway. It is considered that any effects of the development on these receptors resulting from reduction in daylight or sunlight, and shadow effects would be very

Southampton Scoping Statement v4.0 Page 76 September 2010

limited. For this reason the examination of daylight, sunlight and shadow effects has been ‘scoped out’.

Site Vegetation

9.7 There are no trees or other significant vegetation on the site. For this reason the examination of the potential for impact on existing site vegetation is likely to be ‘scoped out’ following the completion of an extended Phase 1 habitat survey of the site, which will also consider the potential for protected, rare or otherwise notable species to be present.

Hazards from Adjacent Sites and Activities

9.8 The proposed site is not located in close proximity to any registered Hazardous Installations. For this reason the examination of potential hazards and risks to the proposed scheme from neighbouring activities and from the proposed scheme on neighbouring activities has been ‘scoped out’.

Vibration Effects - Operation

9.9 It is considered that a plant of this nature will not create any significant environmental vibration during operation. For this reason, the vibration effects of the scheme during operation have been ‘scoped out’.

Health Impact Assessment

9.10 The potential effects on human health through emissions to air, traffic movement, emissions to and from the ground, noise and vibration and electromagnetic effects from the proposals will be assessed within the ES in the relevant sections outlined above, having regard to extant, EC and national requirements and guidelines. For these reasons the applicant does not propose to submit a stand-alone Health Impact Assessment.

Southampton Scoping Statement v4.0 Page 77 September 2010

10.0 PROPOSED STRUCTURE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT

10.1 A preliminary list of the contents of the ES, based on the issues identified during the scoping exercise, is presented below. This has also had regard to the requirements of the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009.

10.2 The Technical Consultation Document which will form the basis of the formal Section 42 Consultation will follow a similar format to the Environmental Statement, with a Non Technical Consultation Document prepared for public consultation purposes.

Non-Technical Summary

10.3 A non-technical description of the project and assessment of associated environmental effects will be provided. The non-technical summary will be produced as a standalone document in a format suitable for public dissemination.

Main ES Document

10.4 The main ES document will include the following chapters:

PART 1: PROJECT BACKGROUND

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 The Proposals 1.2 Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 1.3 Scoping Statement and Statement of Key Issues 1.4 Consultations 1.5 Environmental Permitting Regulations 1.6 Conservation (Natural Habitats, etc) Regulations 1994 1.7 Format of the Environmental Statement 1.8 Environmental Assessment Project Team

2.0 JUSTIFICATION OF THE PROJECT AND CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Alternative Locations 2.3 Conclusions

3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT 3.1 Introduction 3.2 Nature of Proposals 3.3 Process Description Southampton Scoping Statement v4.0 Page 78 September 2010

3.4 Design and Layout 3.5 Development Programme 3.6 Traffic Generation 3.7 Sourcing of Plant Feedstocks 3.8 Operational Life 3.9 Staffing

PART 2: SITE CONTEXT AND POLICY BACKGROUND

4.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND ITS SURROUNDINGS 4.1 Introduction 4.2 Site Description 4.3 Land Use Context 4.4 Planning History

5.0 PLANS AND POLICIES 5.1 Introduction 5.2 National Energy Policy 5.3 National Planning Policy Guidance 5.4 Southampton Revised Local Plan 5.5 Southampton Core Strategy Development Plan Document 5.6 Other Material Considerations 5.6 Statutory Designations 5.8 Planning Considerations

PART 3: ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

6.0 LAND USE 6.1 Introduction 6.2 Baseline Conditions 6.3 Effect of Development Proposals 6.4 Compliance with National Policies 6.5 Compliance with Local Land Use Policies 6.6 Conclusions

7.0 AIR QUALITY 7.1 Introduction 7.2 Air Quality Standards and Assessment Criteria 7.3 Modelling Techniques 7.4 Baseline Conditions 7.5 Assessment of Impacts – General Considerations

Southampton Scoping Statement v4.0 Page 79 September 2010

7.6 Assessment of Impacts on Human Health 7.7 Fugitive Emissions 7.8 Other Emissions 7.9 Mitigation Measures 7.10 Overall Conclusions

8.0 LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL EFFECTS 8.1 Introduction 8.2 Landscape Planning Context 8.3 Assessment Methodology 8.4 Baseline Conditions 8.5 Impact Assessment 8.6 Mitigation Measures 8.7 Significance of Residual Impacts 8.8 Conclusions

9.0 ECOLOGY 9.1 Introduction 9.2 Nature Conservation Policy and Legislation 9.3 Assessment Methodology 9.4 Baseline Conditions 9.5 Impact Assessment 9.6 Mitigation Measures 9.7 Conclusions

10.0 HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT 10.1 Introduction 10.2 Assessment Methodology 10.3 Historic Environment Policy and Legislation 10.4 Baseline Conditions 10.5 Impact Assessment 10.6 Significance of Impacts 10.7 Mitigation Measures 10.8 Conclusions

11.0 GEO-TECHNICAL AND GEO-ENVIRONMENTAL 11.1 Introduction 11.2 Baseline conditions 11.3 Significance of Impacts 11.4 Mitigation measures 11.5 Conclusions

Southampton Scoping Statement v4.0 Page 80 September 2010

12.0 FLOODING AND SITE DRAINAGE (including cooling water discharge) 12.1 Introduction 12.2 Assessment Methodology 12.3 Flood Management Policy and Legislation 12.4 Baseline Conditions 12.5 Assessment of Impacts of Flooding and Drainage to the Site 12.6 Assessment of Impacts of Flooding and Drainage from the Site 12.7 Assessment of Impacts of Cooling Water Discharge 12.8 Significance of Impacts 12.9 Mitigation Measures 12.10 Conclusions

13.0 HIGHWAYS AND MOVEMENT 13.1 Introduction 13.2 Assessment Methodology 13.3 Transport Policy and Legislation 13.4 Baseline Conditions 13.5 Trip Generation and Distribution 13.6 Assessment of Impacts of Construction Traffic 13.7 Assessment of Impacts of Operational Traffic 13.9 Significance of Impacts 13.10 Mitigation Measures 13.11 Conclusions

14.0 NOISE AND VIBRATION 14.1 Introduction 14.2 Methodology and Evaluation Criteria 14.3 Noise and Vibration Policy and Legislation 14.4 Identification of Noise Receptors 14.5 Existing Background Noise Levels 14.6 Construction Noise 14.7 Operational Noise 14.8 Vibration 14.9 Significance of Impacts 14.10 Mitigation Measures 14.11 Conclusions

15.0 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC EFFECTS 15.1 Introduction 15.2 Baseline Socio-Economic Conditions

Southampton Scoping Statement v4.0 Page 81 September 2010

15.3 Assessment of Socio-Economic Impacts 15.4 Other Community Impacts 15.5 Significance of Impacts 15.6 Conclusions

16.0 OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES 16.1 Introduction 16.2 Impact on Southampton Airport 16.3 Connection to the Electricity Grid 16.4 Carbon Emission Savings 16.5 Sustainability of the fuel supply 16.6 Local heat users 16.7 Fire Risk

17.0 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING 17.1 Introduction 17.2 Existing Monitoring Arrangements 17.3 Proposals for Monitoring

PART 4: CONCLUSIONS

18.0 CONCLUSIONS

19.0 SUMMARY OF EFFECTS

10.5 A glossary of technical terms and abbreviations will be included within the Environmental Statement.

Southampton Scoping Statement v4.0 Page 82 September 2010

APPENDIX A EIA Scope of Significant Issues

Scoped Topic Issues Reason In Out i Change in land use  New use of site Compliance with land use Compliance with Development ii  A Land Use policies Plan policies Contribution to sustainable Compliance with Government iii  development policies policies Human, industrial and nature Changes in air quality arising conservation receptors adjacent i from emissions to air due to the  to the site. Compliance with air operation of the plant quality standards Human, industrial and nature Changes in air quality arising conservation receptors adjacent ii from emissions to air due to  or in close proximity to the site.

construction of the plant Impact negative but considered likely to be negligible Changes in air quality arising Human and industrial receptors B Air Quality from emissions to air due to adjacent to the site access route. iii  construction and operational Impact negative but considered traffic movements likely to be negligible Nuisance impacts due to the Human, industrial and nature deposition of dust and PM10 conservation receptors adjacent iv affecting sensitive receptors such  or in close proximity to the site.

as residents and adjacent uses Impact negative but considered during construction likely to be negligible No malodorous materials stored Odours due to on-site storage of v  on site. All storage areas materials enclosed The development is likely to be Impact on statutory and non- visible from the New Forest i  statutory landscape designation National Park and nearby ancient monuments Landscape and The site is adjacent to the Test C Visual ii Change to Landscape character  Estuary and close to the New Forest National Park Introduction of new infrastructure The effects on amenity from iii and buildings, including site  public viewpoints lighting

Southampton Scoping Statement v4.0 Page 83 September 2010

Visual effect of visible plumes The effects on amenity from iv  and lighting public viewpoints There is likely to be a cumulative v Cumulative impacts  visual effect with other nearby energy and waste developments Impact during construction and operation on sites of international or national importance such as There are a number of designated Special Protection Areas (SPAs), sites of nature conservation i  Special Areas of Conservation significance in close proximity to (SACs) Ramsar or Sites of the site Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) Impact during construction and operation on non-statutory There are areas of ecological ii  designated sites of nature value in close proximity to the site conservation interest D Ecology Secondary impacts during construction and operation on designated sites and protected There are areas of acknowledged species, e.g. due to emissions to iii  nature conservation significance air, water, noise, vibration or in close proximity. visual disturbance, including critical loads of pollutant substances Disturbance or loss of protected There are areas of acknowledged or endangered species or their iv  nature conservation significance habitats during construction and in close proximity. operation

Southampton Scoping Statement v4.0 Page 84 September 2010

Impact of proposed development One of the cooling water options on designated features of may affect Grade II Listed George i importance such as scheduled  V Dock and No 7 Pumping monuments, conservation areas Station or listed buildings Historic The burial environment of the E Environment application area might incorporate significant archaeological features Impact of proposed development ii  and/or deposits that are likely to on burial environments be physically disturbed by the construction of the proposed development. Geo technical i

F and Geo Presence of contaminated soil Potential contamination from ii  environmental and subsoil. previous uses The site is located close to Risk of site flooding from river i  Southampton Water and is within and watercourses the floodplain The proposed development will Risk of flooding to the increase the impermeable area ii surrounding area due to the  and hence run-off rates and Flooding and development G volumes. Site Drainage Effects of emissions to water on The potential for fugitive or iii water quality during construction  accidental releases leading to and operation. contamination Risk of ground water The potential for accidental iv contamination from construction  contamination and operational activities Changes in traffic levels on nearby roads and junctions, The levels of both construction Traffic and during construction and traffic and operational traffic may H i  Transportation operation, having regard to the increase the potential impact on physical capacity of the network existing road users and safety issues. Major project generating i Disposal of construction waste  Emissions to construction waste I Land Ash and other residues from ii Disposal of operational residues  production processes negligible Noise and Noise and vibration from the There are sensitive receptors J i  Vibration construction works. nearby

Southampton Scoping Statement v4.0 Page 85 September 2010

There are sensitive receptors ii Operational noise from the plant.  nearby Plant will not produce significant Operational vibration from the iii  levels of vibration during plant operation Noise from traffic associated with Vehicle numbers considered likely iv the construction and operation of  to not be significant and on the plant. established SRN routes Creation of jobs, directly and To quantify the projects social i indirectly, by the project, during  and economic impact. K Socio-Economic both construction and operation. Impact of additional jobs on local To quantify the projects’ social ii  economy and infrastructure and economic impact Potential carbon emissions To quantify contribution to climate L Carbon Savings i  savings change policy Aeronautical Potential effects on Southampton To demonstrate project would not M i Issues airport prejudice safety Proposed buildings and There are no buildings or uses in Daylight, structures might result in a loss the immediate locality that would N Sunlight and i of daylight and sunlight to  be sensitive to loss of daylight or Overshadowing surrounding buildings and uses sunlight or increased and to increased overshadowing. overshadowing The site has no significant O Arboriculture i Impact on site vegetation  vegetation Risk of accident on site due to There are no Hazardous Hazards from failure of plant or incident on P i  Installations in the immediate adjacent sites adjacent site and potential vicinity of the site cumulative effects

Southampton Scoping Statement v4.0 Page 86 September 2010

APPENDIX B

Southampton Scoping Statement v4.0 Page 87 September 2010 MAP 1 International Nature Conservation Designations

KEY

Site boundary

2km linear distance from site boundary

River Itchen SAC 5km linear distance from site boundary

Special Conservation Area (SAC)

Special Protection Area (SPA) & RAMSAR Site

Solent & Southampton Water RAMSAR & SPA

Solent Maritime SAC

Solent & Southampton Water RAMSAR & SPA

Solent & Southampton Water RAMSAR & SPA

SCALE: 1:40,000 at A3

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 Metres

Ecological Planning & Research

The New Forest SPA, SAC & Ramsar CLIENT: Helius Energy

PROJECT: Biomass EGS

Solent Maritime SAC DATE: August 2010 C:\Project Data\BiomassEGS\GIS\Map1_InternationalDesig_P1044_090810 P10/44

Ordnance Survey (c) Crown copyright 2007. All rights reserved. License number 100005596. MAP 2 National Nature Conservation Designations & Local Nature Reserves

KEY

Site boundary

River Test SSSI 2km linear distance from site boundary

River Itchen SSSI 5km linear distance from site boundary

National Park Southampton Common SSSI Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI)

Local Nature Reserve (LNR) Lower Test Valley SSSI

Chessel Bay LNR

Lee-on-the Solent to Itchen Estuary SSSI

Eling & Bury Marshes SSSI

Lee-on-the Solent to Itchen Estuary SSSI The New Forest National Park Hythe to Calshot Netley Marshes SSSI Common LNR SCALE: 1:40,000 at A3 Dibden Bay SSSI 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 Metres

Ecological Planning & Research

The New Forest SSSI CLIENT: Helius Energy Hythe to Calshot Marshes SSSI PROJECT: Biomass EGS

DATE: August 2010

C:\Project Data\BiomassEGS\GIS\Map2_NationalLocalDesig_P1044_090810 P10/44

Ordnance Survey (c) Crown copyright 2007. All rights reserved. License number 100005596.

APPENDIX C

Southampton Scoping Statement v4.0 Page 88 September 2010 Luke Craddy

From: Luke Craddy Sent: 19 August 2010 16:18 To: '[email protected]' Cc: 'Rozie Haines' Subject: Helius Southampton

Vanessa,

Thank you to you and your colleagues for taking the time to meet us yesterday.

I have provided below a summary of the main points arising from the meeting and which will form the basis for a scoping assessment and the development of transport documentation to support the proposed planning application.

- The proposal is for a Biomass Power Station to be fuelled by up to 800,000 tonnes of fuel (biomass). The site is located within the Port of Southampton. - The majority of biomass is to be brought in to the port by sea as a consequence of which no more than 20% of fuel shall be imported by HGV. - For the purpose of the planning application the transport assessments will assess a worst case scenario where or fuel is imported by HGV. This is to allow for a situation where unforeseen circumstances, have meant that the fuel cannot be brought in to the Port by ship e.g. events that have required the Port to close. - It is currently envisaged that this worst case scenario will result in no more than 112 HGV's arriving at the Port / Biomass Plant per day (across a 12 hour period). Allowing for the removal of ash and other incidental deliveries this equates to a maximum of 10 HGV's per hour. - 40 staff will be employed by Helius, including administrative and operational staff, with 16 staff expected on site at any one time. The plant is expected to operate a 5 shift pattern. - It is intended that HGV's traffic associated with the plant will enter and exit the port via Gate 20 with HGV's. All HGV's are expected to travel to the Port via the M271 - Redbridge Roundabout - A35 - Millbrook Roundabout - Dock Gate 20 and returning via the same route. - In order that SCC can determine the level of assessment required we will supply details of the proportional increase in traffic at the Millbrook Roundabout. This will be based on the traffic data that is available within the SCC City Depot Project Transport Statement (TS) . - The growth assumptions within the Depot TS makes allowance for growth associated with the Port to 2030. - There are currently no other registered applications that the transport analysis will need to consider and as such the growth detailed in the depot TS is sufficient. We will use the same assessment years as detailed in the depot TS. - There are no known highway alterations proposed that will affect Helius's proposal albeit signals are proposed from Third Avenue to the westbound entry arm of the Millbrook Roundabout as part of the depot application. The signals previously proposed on First Avenue, and identified in the depot TS are no longer part of the proposals. - Currently SCC are working in partnership with ABP in undertaking assessment of the Port Masterplan proposals. This is currently due for completion in October and it may be necessary for Helius to consider the content of this document should this become available ahead of submission of the planning application. - A Travel Plan will be produced and we will discuss the scope with Rachel Woodward SCC Travel plan Co-ordinator.

Helius are currently preparing a Full Scoping Assessment for the proposed plant and this will include an explanation on the above details. As requested yesterday it will include an explanation on the proportional impact at Millbrook Roundabout however in sending this email I have taken the opportunity to set this down below.

1 In reviewing the depot TS we note that only the AM peak survey is included for the Millbrook Roundabout and that the assessment of proportional increase is assessed in the AM peak only. Paragraph 4.2 of the document states 'A traffic survey carried out at the existing Town Depot, and described more fully below, demonstrated that the levels of traffic generated by the site are substantially higher in the morning peak hour (08:00 - 09:00) than in the evening peak hour. Accordingly, the assessment of highway effect has been restricted to the morning.' On this basis we have provided details of the proportional increase at Millbrook Roundabout for the AM peak only and will complete the Helius TS / TA on the same basis.

2019 Assessment Year (As identified in Appendix C of the SCC City Depot Project TS):

-Total PCU at Millbrook Roundabout (without depot trips) = 4444 -Predicted Biomass Plant PCU (allowing for 16 staff arrivals by car and 10 HGV’s arriving and departing in the same hour) = 62 PCU’s (assumes 1 HGV = 2.3 PCU’s) -Worst case percentage increase at Millbrook Roundabout = 1%

2030 Assessment Year (As identified in Appendix C of the SCC City Depot Project TS):

-Total PCU at Millbrook Roundabout (without depot trips) = 4799 -Predicted Biomass Plant PCU (allowing for 16 staff arrivals by car and 10 HGV’s arriving and departing in the same hour) = 62 PCU’s (assumes 1 HGV = 2.3 PCU’s) -Worst case percentage increase at Millbrook Roundabout = 1%

I trust on the basis of the above assessment you will agree that on the rare occasions such site trip attraction may be experienced this will not have a material effect upon the local highway network or the performance of the Millbrook Roundabout. Furthermore I trust you can agree that no further assessment will be required of the local highway network or the Millbrook Roundabout.

Should any of the above information be unclear I will be happy to discuss this with you or your colleagues otherwise I look forward to receiving your response.

Luke

Luke Craddy Principal Transport Planner JMP Consultants Ltd, The Crescent Centre, Temple Back, Bristol BS1 6EZ

[D] 0117 930 8861 [T] 0117 376 3300 [M] 07875 201053 [F] 0117 376 3301 [W] http://www.jmp.co.uk

Please consider the environment before printing this email.

********************************************************************** JMP Consultants Ltd Registered office: Mercantile Chambers, 53 Bothwell Street, Glasgow, G2 6TS Registration number: SC88006

This e-mail, and any files transmitted with it, may contain confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited.

2 Warning: Although the company has taken reasonable precautions to ensure no viruses are present in this e-mail, the company cannot accept responsibility for any loss or damage arising from the use of this e-mail or attachments.

You are invited to read our full email disclaimer transcript at: http://www.jmp.co.uk/email.htm **********************************************************************

3

PLAN

Southampton Scoping Statement v4.0 Page 89 September 2010